U.S. Department 

of Education

FY 1999 Annual Plan 

Volume 1. 

Objective Performance Plans

and Data Quality

February 27, 1998

Preface

Over the past five years, education has become the number one national priority for the American people.

Whatever the challenge—revitalizing our cities, moving families from welfare to work, providing a skilled

work force for the booming technology sector, teaching our children to say no

to illegal drugs and alcohol, or helping parents balance the demands of work

with the support children need to reach their full potential—Americans from all

walks of life increasingly look to education and our schools to provide answers.

President Clinton has long believed that education, driven by high standards and

harnessed to the near-limitless potential of educational technology, has the

ability to make an unprecedented contribution to freedom and prosperity in the

next American century. That is why the President has made education his top

priority for fiscal year 1999.

The President’s 1999 budget request builds on five years of solid achievement in helping states and

communities raise academic standards for all students, creating closer connections between school and the

world of work, integrating technology into the classroom, and greatly expanding federal support for college

students of all ages. New initiatives in 1999 would help reduce class sizes in grades 1-3 nationwide to just

18 students per class, support more than $20 billion in construction bonds to provide modern academic

facilities to millions of elementary and secondary school students, help turn around failing schools in

America’s inner cities and poor rural areas, train teachers to use technology to teach all children to high

standards, and encourage low-income children and their families to begin planning early for college.

And for the first time, in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the

Department of Education has prepared an Annual Performance Plan which links the Department’s budget

request with its Strategic Plan. By aligning all Department resources and improvement strategies with the

goals and objectives of the Strategic Plan, the Annual Performance Plan will improve the Department’s

accountability to taxpayers and keep its managers focused on getting results. In short, this Annual

Performance Plan provides a set of benchmarks that permit Congress and the public to judge whether the

Department’s programs are working effectively to help states, communities, families, and individuals to

reach their educational goals.

We hope that members of Congress and the American people will pay close attention to this Plan. We

believe it demonstrates how the careful application of limited federal resources can have a significant

impact on the performance of our schools and students.

Richard W. Riley

Secretary of Education

Marshall S. Smith

Acting Deputy Secretary of Education

Contents

Volume 1. Objective Performance Plans and Data Quality 

Preface ......................................................................... 3

Introduction and Overview ......................................... 3

Annual Performance on Objectives .................................. 11

Objective 1.1. States develop challenging standards and assessments for all students in the core

academic subjects. ........................................................... 12

Objective 1.2. Every state has a school-to-work system that increases student achievement, improves

technical skills, and broadens career opportunities for all. ............................. 15

Objective 1.3. Schools are strong, safe, disciplined, and drug free ........................ 18

Objective 1.4. A talented and dedicated teacher is in every classroom in America. ............ 21

Objective 1.5. Families and communities are fully involved with schools and school improvement

efforts. .................................................................... 24

Objective 1.6. Greater public school choice will be available to students and families. ......... 27

Objective 1.7. Schools use advanced technology for all students and teachers to improve education.29

Objective 2.1. All children enter school ready to learn. ................................ 32

Objective 2.2. Every child reads well and independently by the end of the third grade. ........ 35

Objective 2.3. Every eighth-grader masters challenging mathematics, including the foundations of

algebra and geometry. ........................................................ 38

Objective 2.4. Special populations receive appropriate services and assessments consistent with high

standards. ................................................................. 42

Objective 3.1. Secondary school students get the information, skills, and support they need to prepare

successfully for postsecondary education. ......................................... 46

Objective 3.2. Postsecondary students receive the financial aid and support services they need to

enroll in and complete their educational program. ................................... 49

Objective 3.3. Postsecondary student aid delivery and program management is efficient, financially

sound, and customer-responsive. ................................................ 52

Objective 3.4. All adults can strengthen their skills and improve their earning power over their

lifetime through lifelong learning. ............................................... 55

Objective 4.1. Our customers receive fast, seamless service and dissemination of high-quality

information and products. ..................................................... 58

Objective 4.2. Our partners have the support and flexibility they need without diminishing

accountability for results. ...................................................... 61

Objective 4.3. An up-to-date knowledge base is available from education research to support

education reform and equity. ................................................... 63

Objective 4.4. Our information technology investments are sound and used to improve impact and

efficiency. ................................................................. 66

Objective 4.5. The Department’s employees are highly skilled and high-performing. .......... 69

Objective 4.6. Management of our programs and services ensures financial integrity. ......... 71

Objective 4.7. All levels of the agency are fully performance-driven. ...................... 73

Use of tax expenditures .......................................................... 75

Funding and staffing by objective ................................................... 77

Relationship of program goals to Strategic Plan goals and objectives ........................ 79

Quality of Performance Data: How Data Will Be Verified and Validated ..... 87

Strengthening data quality ........................................................ 87

Developing an integrated data system for elementary and secondary state grant programs ........ 88

Improving postsecondary data quality ............................................... 89
Contents, continued

Program Performance Plans ...................................... 93

Development process ............................................................ 93

Next steps .................................................................... 93

Relationship of program plans and FY 1999 budget structure .............................. 95

Appendix A: Coordination with Other Agencies ......................... 99

Volume 2. Program Performance Plans

Education Reform .............................................................. 1

Education Technology .......................................................... 9

Elementary and Secondary Education .............................................. 23

Bilingual and Immigrant Education ............................................... 91

Special Education ............................................................ 101

Rehabilitation Services, Disability Research, and Special Institutions ..................... 115

Vocational and Adult Education ................................................. 149

Student Financial Assistance ................................................... 165

Higher Education ............................................................ 187

Educational Research and Improvement ........................................... 225

Office for Civil Rights ........................................................ 247
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 1

The Department of Education’s

Mission

To ensure equal access to education and to promote

educational excellence throughout the nation.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 2

Goal 3: Ensuring access to postsecondary education and lifelong 

learning.

Information and support to prepare for postsecondary education; financial aid and support 

services to enroll and complete postsecondary 

education;efficient student aid delivery; lifelong 

learning

Inter-relationship of 

Strategic Plan 

Goals and Objectives

Goal 4: 

Achieving a 

high-performing 

Department.

Customer service; 

grantee support and 

flexibility; 

knowledge base to 

support reform and 

equity; effective use 

of information 

technology; skilled 

and high-performing 

employees; 

financial integrity; 

and performance 

management.

Goal 2: Providing a solid foundation 

for learning.

Ensuring that all children enter school ready to 

learn; all children reading by end of 3rd grade; 

all 8th-graders knowledgable about math; and 

helping special populations.

Goal 1: Helping all students reach 

challenging standards.

Support for challenging academic standards; 

school to work systems; strong, safe, & 

disciplined schools; talented teachers; 

meaningful family-school partnerships; greater 

public school choice; and education 

technology.

Exhibit 1
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 3

Introduction and Overview

On September 30, 1997, the U.S. Department of Education delivered its first “Results Act” Strategic Plan

for 1998-2002 to Congress. The plan included the Department’s mission: To ensure equal access to

education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. The plan also included four

goals—three addressing critical national priorities in education and one to make the Department efficient

and an effective partner with states, local communities, and higher education institutions in the important

work of educational improvement. Our goals are:

1. Help all students reach challenging academic standards so that they are prepared for

responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment. 

2. Build a solid foundation for learning for all children.

3. Ensure access to postsecondary education and lifelong learning.

4. Make ED a high-performance organization by focusing on results, service quality, and

customer satisfaction.

The goals represent key customer groups and education processes, starting with support for the elementary

and secondary school system, moving to support for specific K-12 target populations, and then to

postsecondary education access. (See Exhibit 1 for an illustration of the relationship of the goals.) 

To accomplish the goals, the Strategic Plan included objectives and strategies and, for accountability and to

inform decision-making, performance indicators. The objectives are shown in the framework chart on page

10. Performance indicators ranged from end outcome measures such as fourth-grade children’s progress on

the National Assessment of Educational Progress to outputs such as the number of students participating in

the comparatively new School-to-Work program, to process measures such as the number of states that

have instituted standards for core subjects such as reading and math.

To make the plan work, the Department has:

– developed an annual plan to translate its multiyear strategic goals and objectives into concrete annual

strategies covering policy and budgetary initiatives and management reforms,

– specified the financial and program details to implement Education’s annual plan in the FY 1999

Congressional Justifications for the President’s Budget and the individual program plans, and 

– developed and initiated a set of activities to ensure that our plan is implemented to support a process of

continuous improvement toward our annual and long-term goals and objectives.

This document presents the Congress with the Department’s FY 1999 Annual Plan. It includes annual

performance plans for each objective in the Department’s Strategic Plan and program performance plans

that cover all of the Department’s programs. Budget details for the programs are available in the

Department’s Congressional Justifications.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 4

Development of an Annual Plan that links with the FY 1999 President’s Budget

 

The Strategic Plan’s long-term goals and objectives provide the framework for performance planning

within the Department of Education, including budget justifications and performance plans for individual

programs and offices. The Department of Education’s first-ever Annual Performance Plan is fully

integrated into the agency’s FY 1999 budget request. The Department’s FY 1999 budget request aligns

budgetary and other programmatic and management resources to help reach Strategic Plan goals and

objectives and to support the program objectives and performance indicators reflected in the Department’s

new set of program performance plans.

 

Selected FY 1999 budget items.

 

The following examples illustrate how the FY 1999 budget supports each Strategic Plan goal and objective

in FY 1999.

 

Goal 1: High Standards for All Students (an estimated $6.4 billion in the FY 1999 budget). To help

raise the academic standards for all students, the annual plan includes:

 

# Objective 1.1. Challenging standards. The $476 million for Goals 2000 state grants to support states

in having academic standards and assessments aligned with content for at least two core subjects by the

year 2001.

 

# Objective 1.2. Comprehensive school-to-work system. The $125 million for the School-to-Work

Opportunities program with an identical amount provided in the Department of Labor request to help

meet the year 2000 targets of all 50 states and two million youth actively engaged in comprehensive

school-to-work systems.

 

# Objective 1.3. Safe and drug-free schools. The $526 million for Safe and Drug free Schools and

Communities State Grants seeks to strengthen performance through competitive grants to places that

have developed high-quality, research-based approaches to attack severe drug and violence problems.

The budget also provides $50 million to support recruitment, training and employment of drug and

school safety coordinators serving almost half of all middle schools, nationwide. 

 

# Objective 1.4. Talented and dedicated teachers. The $1.1 billion begins the class size reduction

initiative, with the goal of helping to reduce class sizes in grades 1-3 to a nationwide average of 18

within 7 years.

 

# Objective 1.5. Meaningful family and community involvement. The $200 million for 21st Century

Learning Centers would help support 500,000 children in about 4000 before - and after-school learning

programs, a time when many families with hard working parents have difficulty finding supervised care

for their children.

 

# Objective 1.6. Greater public school choice. The $100 million request for Charter schools would

support planning and start-up costs for up to 1400 schools heading toward the target of 3000 charter

schools by 2001. 

 

# Objective 1.7. Educational technology. The $75 million in “Teacher Training in Technology” would

help ensure that all new teachers can use technology effectively in the classroom.

Goal 2: A Solid Foundation for Learning (an estimated $13.8 billion in the FY 1999 budget). To reach

the challenging academic standards called for in Goal 1, children with specific needs must be given the

appropriate opportunities to enter school ready to learn; to master the basics of reading by the end of
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 5

the third grade; and to know math by the end of the eighth grade. Highlights of FY 1999 budget proposals

to achieve these aims include:

 

# Objective 2.1. Enter school “ready to learn.” The $374 million for Special Education Preschool

Grants and the $370 million for Special Education Infants and Families program help ensure that

children with disabilities are ready to enter first grade on an equal footing as their peers without

disabilities. 

 

# Objective 2.2. Read well by end of third grade. The $260 million for the America Reads Challenge

would strengthen parental involvement in reading and extend learning opportunities through the use of

reading specialists, tutors and professional staff development. Also, the $900 million request for Work

Study would provide additional resources for more than 100,000 Work-Study students to serve as

reading tutors. A majority of participants who benefit from the $7.8 billion request for Title I receive

reading help.

 

# Objective 2.3. Know challenging math by eighth grade. The $335 million for Eisenhower Professional

Development State Grants will emphasize the importance of providing sustained, intensive, highquality professional development for mathematics teachers in grades 5-8, as part of the ED-NSF

Action Strategy for improving achievement in mathematics. This strategy also includes $33.7 million to

improve mathematics instruction through professional development and technical assistance under the

Eisenhower Federal Activities Program. In addition, many Title I students would receive help in math

under the Title I $7.8 billion request.

 

# Objective 2.4. Assist special populations. Funding priorities include: 

– $7.8 billion for Title I grants to serve more than 10.5 million students in schools located in high

poverty areas, including the allocation of all the $392 million increase to the very highest poverty

areas. These funds will go primarily to strengthen instruction in reading and mathematics.

– $3.8 billion for Special Education Grants to States will help improve the quality of education and

assist the 6 million children with disabilities to meet the challenging standards expected of all

children

– $600 million for the Hispanic Education plan will increase funding for programs to help raise the

quality of Hispanic education and boost their relatively low high school graduation rates.

Goal 3: Postsecondary Education and Lifelong Learning ($15.8 billion in the FY 1999 budget). The

Department of Education supports significant levels of student financial assistance and provides

information and assistance to help families and student take best advantage of that assistance. Examples of

new or increased initiatives to directed at strengthening access to postsecondary education are:

 

# Objective 3.1. Successfully prepare secondary students for postsecondary education. The $140

million High Hopes College-School Partnerships would bring together colleges, business and

community organizations to provide middle and high school students with information about financial

aid, mentoring and tutoring to keep students on track toward college. 

 

# Objective 3.2. Financial aid and services to assist postsecondary students enroll and complete their

educational program. 

– $7.6 billion for Pell Grants would increase the maximum award by $100 to $3,100 and serve 3.9

million students. The $33.9 billion of loans through Family Education Loans and Federal Direct

Student Loan programs would support 9.1 million loans.

– $583 million for TRIO would provide support services for help 744,000 students to enter and

complete college.

 

# Objective 3.3. An efficient, sound, and responsive postsecondary student aid delivery system. The

Administration's FY 1999 Budget identified the modernization of the student aid delivery system as
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 6

one of its 22 highest priority management objectives. The Department is currently developing a detailed

two-year plan with specific goals and objectives to modernize the student aid delivery system in order

to more effectively and efficiently obtain the data needed to manage and operate the programs.

 

# Objective 3.4. Improve lifelong learning. The Lifetime Learning tax credits worth up to $1,000 in

1999 will assist about 7.1 million students, including those taking class part-time to upgrade their job

skills. The $2.3 billion for Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants would help over 1 million individuals

with disabilities receive the services they need to become employed. 

Key management reforms

The Department is committed to engaging every employee in the tasks needed to accomplish the Strategic

Plan goals and objectives, to improving internal performance management systems, and to reallocating

resources as needed. In the wake of the reinventing government movement and passage of the Results Act,

the Department is investing in its systems and people to ensure that it is in touch with and responsive to

educational needs and has the capacity to carry out its leadership role in improving education in America. 

The most sizable management function in the Department is the administration of postsecondary student

financial aid. Financial aid, including budget authority and loans, totals 70 percent of ED’s funding.

Administration of that function takes about 60 percent of Departmental management funding and about 40

percent of all ED staff (in full-time equivalents). Management in this area also involves major contracts for

data systems that account for 38 percent of that 60 percent. As a result, the Department has a special

objective focused on student financial aid management. 

The cross-cutting management objectives are highlighted under Goal 4: “make the Education Department a

high-performance organization.” These objectives are also realized through specific program improvements

discussed under the objectives for the three prior goals. Examples of both Department-wide and program

specific management improvements for FY 1999 are:

 

# Objective 4.1. Customer service. Continued improvements in customer service will be achieved

through monitoring our customer performance against the Department’s customer service standards,

the implementation of a one-stop shop for customers, expanded access to information through our

award-winning WEB page and 1-800 numbers, and improved access to customers with disabilities

through new web-page formatting and architectural/facilities improvements.

 

# Objective 4.2. Partner flexibility with continued accountability for results. By 1999, the Department

proposes to expand the Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative (CAROI) to about half

the states from the current 10 states; expand ED-FLEX participation for waivers to all states from the

current 12 states; and expand technical assistance through the $40 million request for the

Comprehensive Regional Technical Assistance Centers. Flexible and innovative government

arrangements are reflected in new and innovative partnerships, such as the partnership with the Mott

foundation to support planning and information networks for the 21st Century Community Learning

Centers; and “The Partnership for Family Involvement in Education” with its target of 5,000 member

organizations in 1999, as compared with 33 members when launched in 1994.

 

# Objective 4.3. An up-to-date knowledge base. The proposed $50 million for a new Interagency

Research Initiative, in partnership with the National Science Foundation, will advance knowledge in

such areas as the acquisition and teaching of reading and mathematics and the application of new brain

research.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 7

# Objective 4.4. Sound information technology to improve impact and efficiency. The $4 million request

is to support the comprehensive assessment, validation and renovation of computer systems to ensure

“Year 2000 data compliance.” The Department is committed to carrying out the Information

Technology Management Reform Act (Clinger-Cohen Act) with major expansion in students electronic

application of postsecondary financial assistance and expanded access of person with disabilities to

information and publications.

# Objective 4.5. Highly skilled and high performing employees. Employee training will be aligned to

support the Department’s strategic and annual plans, upgraded through partnership arrangements with

leading public and private sector organizations (e.g., the John Hancock company for strategic planning

and human resource development); and strengthened through on-line computer-based training to

provide access, as needed.

# Objective 4.6. Ensuring financial integrity. Our overall 1999 goals are to obtain a clean financial

audit and improve the product value obtained from our contracts. Key initiatives include strengthening

postsecondary financial management systems (e.g., implementing a risk-assessment model and a single

integrated data system), expanding performance-based contracts to all new contracts and full

implementation of EDCAPS (Education Department Automated Processing System)

# Objective 4.7. A performance-driven agency. The Department will track plan implementation

quarterly, ensure at least one staff person in each program area has appropriate training in data use and

analysis, and conduct independent program evaluations to ensure data quality. The Department is also

working closely with the Inspector General in its review to assess the reliability of Department-wide

and program performance data. To reinforce data quality improvements and controls, each program

manager will also have to attest to the level of validity and reliability of their performance data or have

an improvement plan in place.

Coordination with other federal agencies 

 

The Annual Plan identifies opportunities to improve coordination across agencies to enable the Department

to better serve program participants and to reduce inefficiencies in service delivery. Many federal agencies

have education functions, ranging from staff training, fellowships, grants, or loans for postsecondary

students; grants and other supports to state and local education agencies; and even the operation of schools

(Departments of Defense and Interior). In addition, coordination is often critical for management areas such

as verifying student family income and other financial information with Treasury and Social Security

Administration records.

Through ongoing communication, joint research, coordinated dissemination and technical assistance, and

streamlined regulations and reporting requirements, the Education Department is building strong

collaborations with other federal agencies. Coordination activities are highlighted in each objective

performance plan, starting on page 12. In addition, a summary table listing coordination activities by

federal departments and independent agencies is shown in Appendix A, starting on page 99.

Highlights of cross-agency coordination within our annual plan are:

#Bureau of Indian Affairs. Coordinate program funds for at-risk students, alcohol and drug abuse; and

reading, math and family involvement activities.

#Corporation for National Service. Coordinate implementation of America Reads. 

# Department of Defense. Coordinate Education Department programs received by DOD schools; and

participate on the steering committee of the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education.

#Federal Communications Commission. Coordinate implementation of the Education (E)-rate.

#National Science Foundation. Joint interagency research imitative to promote knowledge development

in technology, mathematics, and brain research.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 8

# Health and Human Services.

– In the area of drug and violence prevention: use of performance data from the National Institute on

Drug Abuse (Monitoring the Future) and Centers for Disease Control (Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance System); cross-agency consultation on evaluation projects (HHS’s School Health

Policies and Program Study ); joint projects to provide training and technical assistance to educators,

communities, and states (Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, Maternal and Child Health

Bureau, and National Institute on Drug Abuse). In addition to these, support for the HHS Secretary’s

Initiative on Youth Substance Abuse Prevention (with Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, National Institute on Drug

Abuse, and other agencies) . 

– In the area of early childhood education: a joint interagency research initiative to promote knowledge

development in early learning including emerging literacy and reading instruction with National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development; work with Head Start Bureau to align indicators

of progress and quality with Even Start and support “Transition to School” grants to sustain Head

Start educational gains; joint activities through the “Communities Can” initiative to promote schoollinked services; and use the Interagency Early Childhood Research Working Group to exchange

research-based information on early learning.

# Housing and Urban Development. As a member of the Interagency Council on Homelessness,

collaborate on a national survey of Homelessness Assistance Providers and Clients.

# Department of Justice. Joint effort to develop and implement the President’s Report Card on School

Violence; use of performance data from National Crime Victimization Survey for performance

measurement; ED’s National Study on School Violence conducted in cooperation with the National

Institute for Justice-sponsored National Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools; joint drug and

violence prevention activities, including the truancy and hate crimes initiatives with the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; joint projects to provide training and technical assistance

on drug and violence prevention to educators, communities, and states, with the Office for Victims of

Crime and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

#Labor Department. Joint administration of National School-to-Work Office, and aligned grant-making,

technical assistance, and performance reporting for School-to-Work.

# Office of National Drug Control Policy. Continue to collaborate on drug prevention initiatives and

performance measurement activities.

#National Endowment for the Arts. Joint project to provide training and technical assistance to

educators and communities on drug and violence prevention activities.

# Office of Science and Technology Policy. Coordinate technology activities as part of Interagency

action plan on learning technologies.

#Treasury Department. 

– Coordinate information and administration of Hope Scholarship and Lifelong Learning credits.

– Coordinate the development of initiatives to finance school construction.

 

Working with our education partners

To accomplish our goals, the Department works in partnership with states, schools, communities,

institutions of higher education, and financial institutions—and through them with students, teachers and

professors, families, administrators, and employers. While our partners may well fully support the mission

and goals we espouse, there is room for differing opinions on how to reach those goals. We are committed

to working jointly with states and communities to establish performance partnerships that respect varying

local circumstances, set mutual goals, provide or identify sufficient resources to achieve success, and give

flexibility in administration in return for accountability for performance.

In addition to providing financial support of $36.8 billion in FY 1999, examples of partnership activities

will include: 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 9

#Continuing to implement program waivers and other flexibility provisions in elementary and secondary

education programs, including expanding ED-FLEX eligibility to all 50 states.

#Improving performance data at all levels—federal, state, and local—to provide necessary feedback for

improvement as well as information for accountability. A good example is the new partnership with

Chief State School Officers to work collaboratively through state pilots to streamline elementary and

secondary education reporting and to improve the timeliness and accuracy of performance indicators.

# Working with 4,000 family, school, employer and religious organizations through the “Family

Involvement Partnership for Education” to exchange information about effective practices for family

involvement and to support all children to achieve to new educational standards.

#Launching an historic public/private partnership with the Mott Foundation, which committed $55

million over five years to support technical assistance, information sharing and program monitoring for

the 21st Century After-School Program.

Using the plan

Historically a weak link in management improvement systems has been that improvement plans fail to take

hold and are not seriously implemented throughout the agency. The Department is well aware of the serious

flaws in implementing past federal management reforms, such as zero-based budgeting and managementby-objectives. To help ensure effective plan implementation, the Department will:

#Communicate to its employees about all phases of the plan and its importance though employee

newsletters, recognition of effective employee improvement efforts, and employee training activities. 

# Align performance appraisals for assistant secretaries and senior managers with achievement of

Strategic Plan and individual program plan objectives. 

#Train staff in areas linked to performance on the Strategic Plan, including training in performance

management.

#Report quarterly on performance for each objective and conduct reviews by the Deputy Secretary.

#Evaluate independently the quality of implementation of the Department’s Strategic Plan based on the

independent work of known experts in the field and audits and reviews performed by the Inspector

General.

Verifying and validating data and results

The quality of performance-driven decisions are no better than the quality of the data on which they are

based. To help ensure reliable and valid performance measures, the Department will: develop data

standards for performance measures consistent with standards used by the Department’s statistical agency;

train appropriate staff in data quality assurance procedures; work with our elementary and secondary

partners, including the Chief State School Officers, to pilot test state/local systems aligned with national

performance indicators; work to streamline currently fragmented postsecondary data systems through

developing an integrated systems architecture; and monitor information quality through independent

evaluations and through coordinated activities with the Inspector General.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 10

Exhibit 2

U.S. Department of Education

Framework of Strategic Plan Goals and Objectives

Mission: To ensure equal access to education and 

to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

Goal 1.

Help all students reach

challenging academic 

standards so that they are

prepared for responsible

citizenship, further

learning, and productive

employment.

Goal 2.

Build a solid foundation for

learning for all children.

Goal 3.

Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. 

Make ED a highperformance organization

by focusing on results,

service quality, and

customer satisfaction.

Objectives

1.1 States develop and

implement challenging

standards and

assessments for all

students in the core

academic subjects. 

1.2 Every state has a schoolto-work system that

increases student

achievement, improves

technical skills, and

broadens career

opportunities for all. 

1.3 Schools are strong, safe,

disciplined, and drugfree.

1.4 A talented and

dedicated teacher is in

every classroom in

America.

1.5 Families and

communities are fully

involved with schools

and school improvement

efforts. 

1.6 Greater public school

choice will be available

to students and families.

1.7 Schools use advanced

technology for all

students and teachers to

improve education.

Objectives

2.1 All children enter school

ready to learn.

2.2 Every child reads

independently by the end

of the third grade.

2.3 Every eighth-grader

masters challenging

mathematics, including

the foundations of

algebra and geometry.

2.4 Special populations

receive appropriate

services and assessments

consistent with high

standards.

Objectives

3.1 Secondary school

students get the

information, skills, and

support they need to

prepare successfully for

postsecondary education.

3.2 Postsecondary students

receive the financial aid

and support services they

need to enroll in and

complete their

educational program.

3.3 Postsecondary student

aid delivery and

program management is

efficient, financially

sound, and customerresponsive.

3.4 Adults can strengthen

their skills and improve

their earning power over

their lifetime through

lifelong learning. 

Objectives

4.1 Our customers receive

fast, seamless service

and dissemination of

high-quality

information and

products. 

4.2 Our partners have the

support and flexibility

they need without

diminishing

accountability for

results.

4.3 An up-to-date

knowledge base is

available from

education research to

support education

reform and equity.

4.4 Our information

technology investments

are sound and used to

improve impact and

efficiency. 

4.5 The Department’s

employees are highly

skilled and highperforming.

4.6 Management of our

programs and services

ensures financial

integrity.

4.7 All levels of the agency

are fully performance

driven.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 11

Annual Performance on

Objectives

The Department of Education’s Strategic Plan includes four goals and twenty-two objectives, as shown in

the framework chart (Exhibit 2, page 10). The following section describes our implementation plans for

each objective for FY 1999, including key strategies, programs, and performance indicators and

performance goals. Since almost all programs in the Department are forward funded, the effects of FY

1999 funding (and in some cases leadership activities and changes in legislation) will not have much effect

before FY 2000. Thus many of the performance goals are aimed for the FY 2000 year, rather than FY

1999.

Following the objective plans is a table showing estimated funding (appropriations for programs and for

Department salaries and expenses) for the objectives. When a program had multiple functions or

components, staff estimated distributions of its funds among the objectives based on knowledge of funding

priorities and program components or used information from the most recent evaluation study or

performance data on the program. The estimates are provided to show roughly the level of resources

supporting a particular objective and double counting is permitted for programs supporting multiple

objectives. Building on this initial resource assignment process, strategies to obtain more precise

information are under review.

Finally, summary information on the Department’s major coordination activities planned for FY 1999 is at

the end of this section and a detailed table is provided in Appendix A (page 99). The table is organized by

the four Strategic Plan goals, showing coordination activities planned for each federal agency.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 12

Objective 1.1. States develop challenging standards and

assessments for all students in the core academic subjects.

Context: All students must have the opportunity to reach high standards of education excellence and all

schools should be held accountable for enabling students to achieve. Helping students reach challenging

academic standards will prepare them for responsible citizenship, productive employment, and lifelong

learning. The FY 1994 reauthorization of the federal elementary and secondary programs, along with Goals

2000, brought federal program support in line with state and local reform efforts, by linking program

performance accountability and improvement to progress on challenging standards and assessments.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Challenging state content and student performance standards. Ensure that states follow a rigorous

process in developing challenging content and performance standards that meet the requirements of Title

I of the ESEA by peer reviewing evidence submitted to the Department of Education; providing technical

assistance through peer consultants and regional labs to states; and raising public awareness of standards

and assessment issues. The Department will support strategies that implement high standards in the

classroom and hold schools accountable for results.

– Use the $7.8 billion request for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies request to help states meet

the statutory requirement that they have assessment systems in place to measure student performance

against state standards by 2001.

– Use the $476 million requested for Goals 2000 state grants to support state efforts to implement

assessments aligned to curriculum and content standards for at least two core subjects by the year

2000. States distribute 90 percent of their Goals 2000 grants to local educational agencies to fund local

standards-based reform efforts.

– Ensure that States include children with disabilities in their accountability systems through appropriate

accommodations on assessments. The Department has requested $3.8 billion for the IDEA State grants

program to assist in providing children with disabilities access to high quality education that will help

them meet challenging standards.

– Assist urban and rural school districts with high concentrations of children from low-income families to

implement educational reform strategies linked to challenging standards for all students, accountability

for results, expanded public school choice, and interventions in failing schools with the $200 million

Education Opportunity Zones initiative.

– The budget includes $15.5 million for the National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and

Assessment, which, among other efforts to improve student achievement in the core academic subjects,

supports the UCLA-based Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. The

Center’s research-based findings have been delivered to state-level officials through such organizations

as the Education Commission of the States.

#National assessments in fourth grade reading and eighth grade mathematics. Support the adoption of

national tests to enable states, districts, schools, and parents to benchmark their students’ performance

against a common measure of achievement aligned with challenging standards.

Coordination

#National Education Goals Panel. Work with National Education Goals Panel as well as various

organizations and associations to promote strategies to implement standards in the classroom.

#Department of Defense. Provide opportunities for interagency collaboration on standards issues. The

Department of Defense is represented on the Department of Education’s Standards and Accountability

Team.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 13

60%

65% 68%

1994 1998 2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent at or above basic

Goal Goal

Student Achievement on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress

4th-Grade Reading

Figure 1

52%

56%

62%

70%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Percent at or above basic

Goal

Student Achievement on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress

8th-Grade Mathematics

Figure 2

Programs supporting this objective

Standards development by states

#Goals 2000 

#Title I 

#Fund for the Improvement of Education

State grants

#Goals 2000 

#Title I 

#School-to-Work Opportunities

#IDEA Part B: State Improvement

Professional development

#Eisenhower Professional Development

#Goals 2000

#Title I

Technical assistance and dissemination

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

#Eisenhower Regional Consortia

#Fund for the Improvement of Education

#Regional Educational Laboratories

#National Dissemination Activities

Research and demonstration

# Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration

#National Education Research Institutes (Student

Achievement Institute)

#Statistics and Assessment

#IDEA Research and Innovation

Selected performance indicators and charts

State progress for Goals 2000 is measured through annual Goals 2000 state reports and the Department’s

evaluation of the state implementation of Goals 2000 and ESEA programs. The Department has developed

a number of indicators to track improvements in instruction based on these new standards and assessments,

including the implementation of research-based approaches in Title I schools and the progress of students,

particularly those in high poverty Title I schools, in meeting challenging standards. 

The percentage of all students performing at the proficient or advanced levels on the National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in core academic subjects will increase. (Goals 2000

plan, indicator 1.1)

Indicator background and context. The adoption and implementation of challenging content and student

performance standards will help all students reach high levels of achievement. 

Data source. NAEP, 1996.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 14

98%

88%

46%

55%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Awareness and Implementation 

of Standards: 1998

Teachers that say 

state/district set 

standards for learning

Teachers that say school 

formally discusses 

student performance

Teachers that say standards

have raised their

 expectations of students

Parents that say they know a lot

about academic goals

Figure 4

States with Challenging Content and 

Performance Standards

18

38

52 50

46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Number of states

Goal

Goal Goal

Figure 3

By the end of the 1997-98 school year, all states will have challenging content and student

performance standards in place for two or more core subjects. (Goal 1, indicator 8)

Indicator background and context. Almost

all states have developed content standards.

In 1997, 18 states sufficiently demonstrated

that they met the requirement of developing

both challenging content and student

performance standards in at least

reading/language arts and math. In 1998, 20

additional states will complete the

development of standards, and by 2001, all

states will have challenging content and

student performance standards in place.

Data source. Department of Education

review of state standards and assessment

development process, fall 1997.

By 2002, increasing percentages of the public and parents will be aware of the importance of

challenging academic standards for all children, including at least the majority of parents from lowincome families. (Goal 1, indicator 10)

Indicator background and context.

The initial challenge for states is to

develop high content and student

performance standards. For students to

reach higher levels of achievement, these

standards must be implemented in the

classroom; and the public, especially

parents, must be made aware of

standards. This indicator measures views

of teachers about standards in the

classroom and parental awareness of

goals and standards. 

Data source. Public Agenda, 1998

Verification/validation of performance

measures: Independent validation of state-reported information on the quality of state standards will be

obtained through peer reviews of state-reported processes and information and by reviews of standards by

highly respected non-governmental organizations, such as the Council for Basic Education, Achieve, and

the American Federation of Teachers. Public awareness and opinions on standards will be obtained through

rigorously designed polls that meet acceptable statistical standards. The congressionally mandated

Independent Review Panel for the National Assessment of Title I and the Federal Impact on Reform,

supported by the Planning and Evaluation Service, will review the methodology of the studies, the findings

of the evaluations, and the interpretation of results.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 15

Objective 1.2. Every state has a school-to-work system that

increases student achievement, improves technical skills, and

broadens career opportunities for all.

Context: School-to-Work (STW) aims to improve learning by connecting what goes on in the classroom

to future careers and to real work situations and to increase student access to opportunities for

postsecondary education and advanced training. Enacted in 1994, the School-to-Work legislation sunsets in

2002.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#STW systems. Support state and local development of school-to-work systems by including $125 million

for the School-to-Work Opportunities program in the FY 1999 Education Department budget, with an

identical amount provided in the Department of Labor request. Eight states will receive their final

implementation grant in 1998, and 19 states will be in their final year in 1999, reflecting the

institutionalization of school-to-work systems envisioned in the authorizing statute.

#Curriculum improvement. The Department is requesting $1.0 billion for a reauthorized Vocational

Education State Grants program that supports state and local efforts to integrate vocational and academic

education and to link secondary and postsecondary education.

#Transition to postsecondary education. The $106 million request for Tech-Prep Education helps give

students the technical skills required by high-tech careers and complements state efforts to build

statewide school-to-work systems.

#Technical assistance. Improve and expand school-to-work programs by providing technical assistance to

help make states with planning grants eligible for implementation grants, and by supporting four national

and 10 state conferences focused on specific issues of program practice and evaluation.

#Employer participation. Increase employer support through targeted outreach and collaboration with

the STW National Employer Leadership Council and by grants to encourage participation by state and

local industry groups and trade associations.

#Out-of-school youth. Increase participation of out-of-school youth by working with Job Corp Centers

and adult high schools.

Coordination

#Department of Labor. The Departments of Education and Labor jointly administer the National Schoolto-Work Office and will improve the management of this program by aligning grant-making, audit,

technical assistance, and performance reporting functions.

#Job Corps. Job Corps Centers are being encouraged to emphasize adoption of school-to-work concepts.

Programs supporting this objective

State grant programs

#School to Work Opportunities program

#State Grants for Vocational Education

#Tech-Prep Education

#IDEA Grants to States

#Title I

Research, development, and technical assistance

#IDEA Research and Innovation

# Vocational Education National Programs and

National Center for Research on Vocational

Education
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 16

500,000

750,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1995 1997 1999 2000

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

Numbers of students

Student Participation in School-to-Work

Goal

Goal

Figure 5

Comprehensive Career

Development Activities

63%

Career Major with

Integrated Curricula

12%

All Key Components

("Full" Participation)

2%

Paid or Unpaid

Work Experience

Linked to School 

16%

Student Involvement in Key School-to-Work Components

In Member High Schools

Note: Work experience is considered "linked to school" if workplace 

performance counts towards grades and class assignments draw on 

the workplace experience.

Figure 6

#National Research Institute on Postsecondary

Education, Libraries, and Lifelong Learning

#Statistics and Assessment

# National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators in the Strategic Plan for objective 1.2 focus on expected outcomes from vocational

education and school-to-work, as well as indicators that track student and stakeholder participation in

recent reform efforts in these areas. 

Two million youth will be engaged actively in school-to-work systems by fall 2000. (Goal 1, indicator

14)

Indicator background and context. Baseline data

for 1995 indicate that 500,000 students

participated in one or more school-to-work

activities with a goal of 2,000,000 participants

projected by the year 2000. (See figure at right.)

Although participation in career development

activities (job shadowing, employer site visits) is

fairly common, baseline data for 1996 high school

graduates show that very few students (2%) were

actively engaged in a program of study that

included all of the core components of STW (see

figure below).

Data source. School-to-Work Progress

Measures, 1996 

Data source. Partners in Progress:

Early Steps in Creating School-to-Work

Systems, Mathematica Policy Research,

1997 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 17

26.0%

74.0%

Employers Participating in

School-to-work Partnerships, 1997

Non-participating

establishments

Participating

establishments

Figure 7

By fall 1997, 400,000 employers nationally will engage in at least one recognized STW activity. By fall

2000, 600,000 employers will engage in at least one recognized STW activity.

(School-to-Work program performance plan, indicator 5.1).

Indicator background and context. Data from a

national survey of employers shows that, in 1997, 26

percent of sampled establishments (work sites)

reported participating in school-to-work partnerships.

Data source. Bringing School-to-Work to Scale:

What Employers Report, National Employer Survey,

1997.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Grantee-reported data on student participation and

outcomes will be validated by comparing results with independent evaluations involving student surveys,

analysis of high school records, case studies, and annual surveys of all STW local partnerships.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 18

Objective 1.3. Schools are strong, safe, disciplined, and drug

free 

Context: Schools must provide a safe and drug-free environment if students are to learn effectively.

Drug and violence prevention plays a critical role in ensuring such environments. School modernization

also contributes to strong, safe schools.

 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Principles of Effectiveness. Promote the Department’s Safe and Drug Free Schools Program Principles

of Effectiveness through evaluations and technical assistance to ensure state and district use of effective

prevention strategies. 

#Program restructuring. Restructure the Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program by increasing the

emphasis on discretionary grants to support implementation of the Principles of Effectiveness. The

Department is requesting $526 million for Safe and Drug-Free Schools State Grants to support

comprehensive, integrated prevention approaches. The Department is proposing to earmark $125 million

of that state grant total to test whether better results can be obtained through a competitive grant

approach than through the traditional formula grants. 

#Coordinators. Implement a new $50 million Safe and Drug-Free Schools initiative to support the hiring

of about 1,300 program coordinators—enough to serve nearly one-half of all middle schools—to assess

drug and violence problems, identify effective, research-based strategies, assist staff with program

implementation, and build links with community-based prevention programs.

#President’s Report Card. Implement the President’s Report Card on School Violence in cooperation

with the Department of Justice to encourage public awareness of school safety issues and to encourage

schools and communities to monitor safety and improve prevention strategies. 

#After-school programs. Expand the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program by $200

million to support about 4,000 before- and after-school programs—serving up to half a million

students—to keep schools open as safe havens while providing extended learning activities to improve

achievement and prevent youth violence and substance use. The Department will coordinate with

supporting activities to be funded through a five-year, $55 million private donation by the C.S. Mott

Foundation to enhance the quality of before- and after-school programs.

#School modernization. Provide federal tax credits to pay the interest on nearly $22 billion in school

modernization bonds to construct or renovate public school facilities. This proposal calls for

$11.1 billion in interest-free bonds in 1999 and an identical amount in 2000. The proposed National

Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities would disseminate information on cost-effective ways to

construct, renovate, and maintain educational facilities.

Programs supporting this objective

Grants for services

#Safe and Drug-Free Schools Grants to States

#Safe and Drug-Free Schools Coordinators

#21st Century Community Learning Centers

#Impact Aid

Statistics

#National Center for Education Statistics

Development, dissemination, and technical

assistance

#Safe and Drug-Free Schools National

Programs

#Comprehensive regional assistance centers

Coordination

#Data. Implement the President’s Report Card on School Violence, with the Department of Justice (DOJ);

make maximum use of other agencies’ data, e.g., Department of Health and Human Services
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 19

Figure 8

(HHS) [Monitoring the Future, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA); Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control] and DOJ [National Crime Victimization Survey].

#Evaluation. Continue to cooperate on evaluation projects with DOJ [e.g., National Study on School

Violence, being conducted in cooperation with the National Institute for Justice-sponsored National

Study of Delinquency Prevention in Schools] and HHS [e.g., School Health Policies and Program’s

Study, for which ED is providing consultation].

#Prevention activities. Continue to pursue joint projects, such as the truancy and hate crimes initiatives

[with DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)]; efforts to provide training

and technical assistance to educators, communities, and states [with OJJDP, DOJ’s Office for Victims of

Crime, HHS’s Center for Substance Abuse Prevention, HHS’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau,

NIDA, and the National Endowment for the Arts]; and support for the HHS Secretary’s Initiative on

Youth Substance Abuse Prevention [with HHS’s Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services

Administration, HHS’s National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse, NIDA, the Office of

National Drug Control Policy, and other agencies].

Selected performance indicators and charts

The Department is monitoring progress on this objective in terms of the national trends in student drug and

alcohol use, in-school use, and attitudes towards drugs and alcohol as a precursor to behavior, as well as

national trends in student victimization and violent incidents in schools. The Department is also focusing on

indicators of the quality of drug and violence prevention programs as a result of problems identified by

evaluations of the antecedent Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act.

By 2000, reduce the prevalence of past month use of illicit drugs and alcohol among youth by 20% as

measured against the 1996 base year. (Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) target)

Indicator background and context. While rates of student drug use have shown increases in recent years,

1997 data indicate that—although marijuana continues its longer-term rise among older teens—use of a

number of other illicit drugs has begun to level off. 

Data source. Monitoring the Future, 1991-1997.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 20

16.2% 15.5%

12.0%

1993 1995 2002 

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

Goal

9th-12th Grade Students in a Physical Fight

on School Property, 1993-1995

Percent of students in physical fight

Figure 9

The number of criminal and violent incidents in schools by students will continually decrease between

now and 2002. (Goal 1, indicator 20)

Indicator background and context.

Student-reported rates of victimization

provide one measure of school safety; these

rates may differ from incident reports

provided by administrators. Although longterm trend data are not available, data for

recent years suggest that student

victimization rates are currently relatively

stable.

Data source. Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance System, 1993-1995.

By 1999, all LEAs will use prevention programs that are based on the Principles of Effectiveness.

(Safe and Drug-Free Schools Program plan, indicator 5)

Indicator background and context. The

Department is developing Principles of

Effectiveness for the SDFSCA program

to ensure that states and districts

implement effective prevention

approaches. 

Data source. No data are currently

available on the number of local

education agencies implementing the

Principles of Effectiveness. This

information is being collected starting in

FY 1998 through district surveys and

state performance reports. A new

evaluation will examine the quality of

implementation of the Principles during

the first years they are in effect.

Verification/validation of performance

measures: Data on performance measures will be obtained from multiple data sources—rigorously

designed and nationally representative independent data collections including: Monitoring the Future

(University of Michigan/HHS), the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (CDC), and the National

Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics). Evaluation studies sponsored by ED include

technical working groups to provide independent consultation. 

U.S. Department of Education’s Principles of 

Effectiveness for Drug Prevention Programs

Effective July 1998:

! Grant recipients will base their programs on a thorough

assessment of objective data about the drug and violence

problems in the schools and communities served.

! Grant recipients will, with the assistance of community

representatives, establish a set of measurable goals and

objectives, and design their activities to meet those goals

and objectives.

! Grant recipients will design and implement their activities

based on research or evaluation that provides evidence

that the strategies used prevent or reduce drug use,

violence, or disruptive behavior.

! Grant recipients will evaluate their programs periodically

to assess their progress toward achieving their goals and

objectives and use their evaluation results to refine,

improve, and strengthen their program and to refine their

goals and objectives as appropriate.

Figure 10
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 21

Objective 1.4. A talented and dedicated teacher is in every

classroom in America.

Context: A talented, dedicated, and well-prepared teaching force is one of the most important ingredients

for successful educational reform. Teachers’ knowledge and skill make a crucial difference in what students

learn. However, many classrooms do not have a talented and dedicated teacher who is adequately prepared

for the challenges of today. For example, nearly 28% of teachers of academic subjects have neither an

undergraduate major or minor in their main assignment fields. In addition, 22% of all new teachers leave

the profession within the first three years. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Improved teacher recruitment, preparation of future teachers, and retention of new teachers.

– Enact and effectively implement the new $67 million Teacher Recruitment and Preparation program

that would support high-quality teacher preparation, as well as the recruitment of new teachers for

high-poverty urban and rural areas that have the most difficulty in attracting and retaining a qualified

and talented teaching force. 

– A new $75 million Teacher Training in Technology initiative would make grants to states, teacher

colleges, and other organizations to help ensure that all new teachers can use technology effectively in

the classroom.

– The budget includes $1.1 billion in mandatory funds to begin a Class Size Reduction Initiative that,

over the next 7 years, would recruit and train 100,000 new teachers in order to help reduce class sizes

in grades 1-3 to a nationwide average of 18.

#Rigorous standards for teachers. Provide on-going support for the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) and the Interstate New Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium

(INTASC). The NBPTS establishes rigorous standards and assessments for certifying accomplished

teaching. INTASC is a program of the Council of Chief State School Officers and is a consortium of

state education agencies, higher education institutions, and national educational organizations dedicated

to reform in education, licensing and on-going professional development of teachers.

#Strengthened professional development.

– Embed ED’s Mission and Principles of High-Quality Professional Development in all appropriate

legislation and disseminate information on effective policies and practices to the field.

– Through the National Awards Program for Model Professional Development, promote results-oriented

professional development that focuses on improving student achievement.

– The $335 million request for Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants would support

intensive, high-quality professional development aimed at ensuring that all teachers have the expertise

needed to prepare their students to meet high standards.

– The $50 million request for Bilingual Education Professional Development would double support for

helping meet the critical need for fully certified bilingual education and ESL teachers.

#Research, development and dissemination on teacher quality and accountability. Continue to monitor

and support the contract for the National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching

(NPEAT)—a partnership of researchers, teaching experts and advocates, teaching and teacher

associations, subject matter associations, national policy groups, and regional laboratories. NPEAT

activities include research, workshops, conferences, publication of information, technical assistance and

capacity building. Continue to support and monitor the grant for the Center for the Study of Teaching

and Policy at the University of Washington. 

#Public awareness. Issue the first biennial national report card on teacher quality by the end of 1998. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 22

Coordination

#Coordination with NSF and NASA. Work with the National Science Foundation (NSF) on several

projects to improve mathematics education. The two agencies will jointly award capacity-building grants

to districts to help strengthen district-level coordination of federal programs for math education. Key

programs include those that support teacher professional development. ED will also be working with the

National Aeronautical and Space Administration (NASA) and NSF to prepare a “roadmap” for teacher

preparation to improve the training of future teachers of mathematics.

#Coordination within ED. ED’s cross-office Professional Development Team will continue to improve

the coordination of ED’s programs that support professional development by sharing information and

strategies across programs and by sponsoring training opportunities on teacher professional development

for ED staff.

Programs supporting this objective

Programs solely for teacher training or

professional development

#Eisenhower Professional Development State

Grants

#HEA Title V Teacher Recruitment and

Preparation

#Teacher Training in Technology

#IDEA Personnel Preparation

#Telecommunications Demonstration Project for

Mathematics

#National Writing Project

#Bilingual Education Professional Development

Programs for technical assistance and/or

research

#Eisenhower Professional Development Federal

Activities Program

#Eisenhower Regional Consortia

#Regional Educational Laboratories 

#National Education Research Institutes

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

#Statistics and Assessment

Programs for instructional services and

professional development

#Title I grants to local education agencies

#Technology Literacy Challenge Fund

#IDEA State Improvement Grants

#IDEA State Grants (B, C, D subpart 1)

#Bilingual Education

#Goals 2000

#Class Size Reduction Initiative

#Educational Opportunity Zones

#America Reads Challenge 

#Star Schools

#Javits Gifted and Talented Education

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators in the Strategic Plan for objective 1.4 focus on outcomes that demonstrate an

increase in the percentage of classroom teachers who are dedicated, talented and adequately prepared to

teach to high standards. One of the indicators summarized here is a key outcome indicator the percentage of

secondary school teachers who have at least a minor in the subject they teach. The other indicator is a key

process indicator because it involves the number of assessment packages and certificates that will be

offered by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. Without the availability of National

Board assessment packages and certificates in the vast majority of teaching fields, most teachers will not be

able to apply for National Board Certification.

Throughout the nation the percentage of secondary school teachers who have at least a minor in the

subject they teach will increase annually. (Goal 1, indicator 30 )

Indicator background and context. Data from the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS) indicate

that only 72 percent of teachers of academic subjects have a major or minor in their main assignment field

(SASS, 1994). (This statistic includes secondary teachers and a very small number of elementary teachers

who are assigned to individual academic fields.) Our goal is that the percentage of
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 23

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

77%

78%

Percentage of Academic Teachers

Actual Projected

The Projected Percentage of Academic Teachers Who Hold

At Least a Minor in the Subject They Teach

72%

77%

Figure 11

10

14

7

12

0

5

10

15

20

25

The Number of NBPTS Assessment Packages and 

Certificate Fields Available and Under Development

5 

continued

from 

1998;

Number of packages/certificates

9 new

Available Being 

developed

Available Being 

developed

1998 1999

Figure 12

teachers with at least a major or minor will

continually increase and will increase at a

faster rate over the next several years as

more teachers retire and new teachers are

hired to take their place. 

Our goal is that by 2002, 77 percent of

teachers of academic subjects will have a

major or minor in the subject they teach.

Seventy-seven percent is approximately

half-way between our baseline (72% in

1993-94) and the percentage in the state

that has the highest percentage of

secondary teachers who hold a degree in

the subject they teach—81 percent in

Minnesota. (The 81 percent does not

include teachers who hold a minor.)

Data source. National baseline data from the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS). Future

national data will come from the 1999-2000 SASS and future SASS. Minnesota data from National

Education Goals Panel Report, 1996.

Standards and assessments developed, approved, and offered by the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards will increase annually, reaching a cumulative total of at least 25 teaching fields

by the year 2002. (Eisenhower Federal Activities Program indicator.)

Indicator background and context. One of

the performance indicators for objective 1.4

is that “the number of nationally board

certified teachers will increase to reach

105,000 by 2006.” In order to reach that

goal, the National Board for Professional

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) will offer

assessment packages and certificates in a

wide range of fields so that most teachers in

the Nation can apply for National Board

Certification in their teaching fields. 

By 1999, packages for five of the fields that

are under development in 1998 will be

completed. Thus, in 1999, the NBPTS will

offer certificates in 12 teaching fields that

will provide approximately 62.4 percent of

the teaching population with access to

National Board Certification. When the 14 fields under development in 1999 are completed (in 2000, 2001

and 2002), a total of 26 certificates will be available, and 95 percent of the teaching population will have

access to National Board Certification. Data source. National Board for Professional Teaching

Standards.

Verification/validation of performance measures: A national evaluation of professional development and

federal program support conducted by the Planning and Evaluation Service will provide rigorous,

independent performance data on teaching and professional development. Successful accomplishment of

these objectives will also be verified using national representative data from the National Center for

Education Statistics and from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 24

Objective 1.5. Families and communities are fully involved with

schools and school improvement efforts.

Context: Family involvement in their children’s learning, more than socioeconomic status or parent’s

educational level, is the greatest predictor of academic achievement. As such, involving families and

community members in children’s learning can be a powerful school improvement force. As a means of

helping all children achieve to high standards and improving schools, the U.S. Department of Education

initiated a unique private-public partnership in 1994, known as the Partnership for Family Involvement in

Education. The Partnership and its 4,000 members focus on specific national activities—America Goes

Back to School, The America Reads Challenge, Think College Early, and After-School Extended Learning.

In addition, parent and community involvement is promoted through the Department’s programs—Title I,

Even Start, special education, bilingual education, migrant education, postsecondary education, and Goals

2000. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Financial support for federal programs that support families in helping their children learn.

– Support the start up or expansion of 3,800 21st Century Community Learning Centers that would

provide extended learning services to over a half million students ($200 million in FY 1999).

– Create local “High Hopes” College-School Partnerships ($140 million under proposed legislation).

– Continue family literacy programs through Even Start ($115 million).

– Support Goals 2000 Parent Information and Resource Centers that exist in every state and territory

($25 million).

– Continue to support IDEA parent centers for families of children with disabilities ($20.5 million).

#Partnership for Family Involvement in Education.

– Support Read*Write*Now!, the summer reading component of the America Reads Challenge,

promoting the development of literacy skills 

– Engage local communities in America Goes Back to School, which encourages parent and

community involvement in schools throughout the year.

– Engage middle schools students, their families and teachers in the Think College Early nationwide

campaign

– Promote the creation of 500 new after-school programs in fulfilment of the Partnership’s

America’s Promise pledge

– Partner with member organizations to further their own family involvement activities.

– Sign on new members to the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education and continue to

involve them in the four major initiatives of the Partnership—America Goes Back to School,

READ*WRITE*NOW!, Think College Early, and After-School Learning.

#Technical assistance.

– Provide federal program assistance and support for family involvement in children’s learning

through Title I compacts

– Provide training materials for teachers and school administrators on the importance of family

involvement in education

#Research. Develop and implement a long-range applied research agenda to strengthen family

involvement in children’s learning.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 25

1,700,000

3,400,000

1991 1994 1997 2000 2002

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

Students

Estimated Number of Students

In Formal After-School Programs

Goal

Figure 13

Coordination

#Partnerships with organizations representing families, schools, communities, religious faiths, and

employers. Work through the Partnership for Family Involvement in Education to successfully

implement national and sector-initiated activities, such as teacher training modules, compacts,

conferences, guidebooks, and tutoring and mentoring programs.

#Work group on after-school time. Work with the Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing

and Urban Development, Agriculture, Justice, and Corporation for National Service on coordinating

department efforts that make the most of young people’s out-of-school time.

Programs supporting this objective

Direct assistance to parents

#Goals 2000 Parental Assistance

#IDEA Parent Information Centers

#IDEA Infants and Families (Part C)

#Even Start

#Bilingual Education

#Ready to Learn Television

Reading

#Inexpensive Book Distribution

#Ready to Learn Television

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

#Regional Educational Laboratories

Information on college

#TRIO programs

#High Hopes College-School Partnerships

Family-school partnership building

#Title I Grants to LEAs

#IDEA State Grants

# Migrant Education

#Safe and Drug-Free Schools

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

#Regional Educational Laboratories

After-school

#21st Century Community Learning Centers

grants to schools

#Title I Grants to LEAs

#IDEA State grants (Part B)

#Regional Educational Laboratories

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators for objective 1.5 focus on two different aspects of the program—participation in

after-school programs and parent participation in parent-teacher conferences. Both of these performance

indicators are important to measuring family involvement in education from the vantage point of the parent

and the child.

By 2002, the number of children participating in after-school programs will double, from 1.7 million

to 3.4 million children. (Goal 1, indicator 34)

Indicator background and context. While a

number of communities are already developing

after-school programs, such programs are not widespread, particularly in the public schools.

#In 1995, there were 23.5 million school-aged

children with parents in the workforce. But as

recently as the 1993-94 school year, 70 percent of

all public elementary schools did not have a

before- or after-school program. 

#In addition, the majority of extended-day

programs are aimed at kindergarten and

earlyelementary school students, and focus on

supervised care rather than academic instruction. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 26

71%

90%

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of Parents and Guardians Attending

Regularly Scheduled Parent-Teacher Conferences

Goal

Figure 14

Data source. Seppanen, P., Love, J., deVries, D. And Bernstein, L. (1993). National Study of Before-and

After-School Programs. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

The percentage of parents who meet with teachers about their children’s learning will show

continuous improvement, reaching 90 percent by 2002. (Goal 1, indicator 32)

Indicator background and context.

Although schools almost universally sponsor

various programs for parents, parents

frequently do not attend these events. School

events that feature some interaction with

students’ teachers, especially parent-teacher

conferences, appear to attract more parents

than other types of events. This is important

since families who are consistently informed

about their children’s progress at school have

higher-achieving children. Parent-teacher

conferences are once important way to

establish a partnership founded on improving

children’s learning.

Data source. U.S. Department of Education,

National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey, 1996.

Verification/validation of performance measures: The Steering Group of the “Partnership for Family

Involvement in Education,” composed of representatives from outside organizations engaged in family

involvement, will review all indicator data. Information will be collected through rigorously designed and

independently administered surveys of schools and families as part of program evaluations and of

collections by the National Center for Education Statistics.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 27

Objective 1.6. Greater public school choice will be available to

students and families.

Context: Research suggests that public school choice fosters a sense of ownership among school staff,

students, and parents that promotes successful efforts toward common goals. Public school choice can

encourage greater flexibility in school offerings to address the needs of families and communities, while

maintaining accountability for students meeting challenging state standards of performance. According to a

1993 survey of parents, approximately 12 percent of all U.S. students in grades 3-12 attended a public

school that their families chose. Public school choice operates through a variety of mechanisms, including

charter schools, magnet schools, open enrollment policies, and postsecondary options. The Department of

Education supports the expansion of public school choice primarily through its Public Charter Schools

Program and Magnet Schools Assistance Program.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Financial support for public schools of choice. 

– Support the planning and start-up costs of up to 1,400 charter schools (serving about 400,000

students) through the FY 1999 request for $100 million for the Public Charter Schools Program.

– Support magnet school projects in approximately 60 school districts (with an average of 7 or 8 magnet

schools per district) through the $101 million request for Magnet Schools Assistance.

#High quality and timely technical assistance. 

– Hold a Magnet Schools Technical Assistance Conference.

– Hold the 2nd National Charter Schools Conference.

– Encourage interest and understanding of charter schools through conducting informational/outreach

meetings in states with new charter school laws.

– Provide ongoing technical assistance to magnet schools and charter schools through the Equity

Assistance Centers and the comprehensive regional assistance centers.

#Research and evaluation.

– Release the Year 3 report of the National Study of Charter Schools.

– Commence an evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program.

– Commence an evaluation of the Magnet Schools Assistance Program.

#Public outreach.

– Write and publish articles in newspapers, parent organization newsletters, and/or educational journals

regarding public school choice. 

– Disseminate “A Parent’s Guide to Public School Choice” widely.

Coordination

#Partnerships to promote charter schools in DC. Work with other federal agencies and the District of

Columbia school system to encourage their adoption or support of public charter schools in the district.

Programs supporting this objective

Grants supporting magnet and charter schools

#Magnet Schools Assistance Program

#Public Charter Schools Program

Technical assistance and dissemination

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

#Title IV (Civil Rights Act) Centers

Research

#Statistics and Assessment
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 28

12%

25%

1993 2002

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Percent of Students in Grades 3-12 in Public 

Schools of Choice, 1993-2002

Goal

Figure 15

64

428

750

1,400

2,300

3,000

1995 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Number of Charter Schools in Operation

1994-2002

Est.

Goal

Goal

Est.

Figure 16

Selected FY 1999 performance indicators and charts

The Department of Education measures its progress toward meeting the objective of increased public

school choice availability by, among other indicators, tracking the percent of students in public schools of

choice and the number of charter schools in operation across the country. 

By 2002, 25% of all public school students in grades 3-12 will attend a school that they or their

parents have chosen. (Goal 1, indicator 35)

Indicator background and context. The growth in

charter schools, magnet schools and other public

school choice strategies will result in increasing

percentages of students enrolled in such schools.

Data source. National Household Survey, 1993

and 2002.

By 2002 there will be 3,000 charter schools in

operation around the nation. (Goal 1, indicator 37)

Indicator background and context. The

number of charter schools operating

nationwide has been growing rapidly since the

first charter school opened in 1992. Currently,

there are roughly 750 charter schools in

operation, and this pace is expected to

continue.

Data source. RPP report A Study of Charter

Schools: First Year Report (1997) and

projected estimates of the number of charter

schools that can be expected to start up in

states with charter school legislation. 

Verification/validation of performance measures: Information sources include an independent evaluation

of the Public Charter Schools Program as well as the National Study of Charter Schools, a nationally

representative study conducted by RPP International. Additionally, two periodic and rigorously designed

Department data collections—the Schools and Staffing Survey and the National Household Education

Survey--will be used.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 29

Objective 1.7. Schools use advanced technology for all

students and teachers to improve education.

Context: Research has found that educational technology, when used effectively, can significantly

improve teaching and learning. The impact of technology on educational achievement is expected to grow

with improvements in software and hardware. The educational resources of the Information Superhighway

are growing rapidly. However, many students and teachers—particularly those in high-poverty or rural

schools—have little access to these resources. 

The “four pillars” of the President’s Educational Technology Challenge—(1) professional development for

effective use of educational technology; (2) student classroom access to modern multimedia computers; (3)

classroom connections to the Information Superhighway; and (4) integration of technology for improved

teaching and learning to high standards—work to ensure that no child is left behind.

Educational technology continues to be a high priority and we have made significant progress on our goals

to put modern computers in our classrooms and connect them to the information superhighway. With

increasing access to computers and telecommunications, we must be sure that teachers also have the

training and support they need to effectively use this investment.

In response to this significant need, the Administration’s educational technology FY 99 investments will

place special emphasis on technology training for teachers, to ensure that all new teachers entering the

workforce can use technology effectively in the classroom and that there is at least one teacher who can

serve as a technology expert in every school to help other teachers use technology. In addition, the FY 99

budget request provides funding for new research and expanding the role of technology for life long

learning.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Financial support for leveraginge State and local initiatives for effective use of educational

technology.

– Use the $475 million request for the Technology Literacy Challenge Fund to support more grants to

local districts to expand efforts to train teachers, get computers, connect schools to the internet, and

develop and buy software.

– Encourage states to devote at least 30 percent of the funds to provide teachers with the professional

development they need to use technology effectively in the classroom.

#Teacher training and support to effectively integrate information technology into their teaching.

– Use the $75 million Teacher Training in Technology initiative to make grants to states, teacher

colleges, and other organizations to help ensure that all new teachers can use technology effectively in

the classroom.

– Utilize a portion of the $106 million request for Technology Innovation Challenge Grants to support 24

new awards to local partnerships among educators, business, and industry aimed at developing or

adapting technology to improve the quality of teaching.

– Report on current teacher preparation programs and encourage higher education institutions to

incorporate technology literacy and classroom application in coursework for entering teachers.

#Technology connections, especially for high-poverty and rural schools.

– Encourage schools to greatly expand their use of technology through the E-Rate, or universal service

program, created under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The E-Rate offers schools and libraries

discounts of from 20 to 90 percent—worth as much as $2.25 billion a year—on Internet services and

networking hardware and software.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 30

– Monitor progress of school and library applications for E-rate and provide technical assistance and

dissemination of information regarding E-rate.

– Encouraging targeting of Technology Literacy Challenge Fund resources to LEAs with high poverty

and the greatest need for educational technology.

#Effective software and on-line applications. 

– Identify and disseminate information on promising content-based projects in educational technology

programs.

– Through interagency effort, make hundreds of Internet-based education resources, supplied by the U.S.

Federal government, easier for teachers and students to find.

#Information for performance improvement.

– Develop evaluations and program indicators that provide information on progress on the 4 pillars and

on program effectiveness in using educational technology to improve teaching and learning for all

students.

Coordination

#Work with the Federal Communications Commission and the Schools and Libraries Corporation to

effectively implement effective use of the “E-rate”.

#Work with the Office of Science and Technology Policy to complete interagency action plan on learning

technologies research and development.

#Work with state technology coordinators, businesses, foundations and other groups to support and

monitor progress on the educational technology goals.

Programs supporting this objective

Formula grant programs for services and

equipment

#Goals 2000 grants to states

#Technology Literacy Challenge Fund 

Discretionary grant programs for services and

equipment

#IDEA Technology and Media Services

Technical assistance

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers

#Regional Technology in Education Consortia 

Performance information

#Statistics and Assessment

Demonstrations

#Eisenhower Math/science Regional Consortia

#Urban Community Service

#Telecommunications Demonstration Project for

Math

Development and dissemination

#Technology Innovation Challenge Grants

#Regional Educational Laboratories

#Star Schools

#NIDRR

#Assistive Technology

#Ready to Learn Television

#Eisenhower Professional Development Federal

Activities

Selected performance indicators and charts

The performance indicators included in the Strategic Plan for objective 1.7 relate to the expected outcomes

of effectively implementing the four pillars, including a critical end outcome (improved student

achievement) and key process indicators that will show how the education system is changing to make

better use of educational technology.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 31

9 9

7

5

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Ratio (X to 1)

Ratio of School Students to Computers

Goal

Figure 17

3% 8% 14%

25%

50%

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

rooms connected

Percent of classInstructional Rooms Connected

to the Internet Superhighway

Goal Goal

Figure 18

The ratio of students per modern multimedia computer will improve to 5:1 by 2001.

(Goal 1, indicator 40)

Indicator background and context. The ratio of

students to computers was 9 to 1 in 1995. This

fell to 7 to 1 in 1996. High poverty schools often

have more students sharing a computer. The

number of students per multimedia computer was

21.1 in 1997.

Sources. Advanced Telecommunications Survey,

MDR, QED. 

The percentage of public school instructional rooms connected to the Information Superhighway will

increase from 14% in 1996 to 25% in 1998, and higher percentages thereafter. (Goal 1; indicator 41)

Indicator background and

context. The number of

instructional rooms in public

schools connected to the

Information Superhighway grew

from 3% in 1994 to 8% in 1995, to

14% in 1996.

Sources. NCES Advanced

Telecommunications,

Verification/validation of performance measures: Independent evaluations conducted by the Planning

and Evaluation Service will report on the federal technology programs at the state, local, and school levels.

Statistically valid national surveys of technology implementation will be obtained through the National

Center for Education Statistics. Independent expert groups in the technology field will provide guidance on

measurement and reporting of results.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 32

Objective 2.1. All children enter school ready to learn.

Context: Research on early brain development reveals that learning experiences introduced to children at

an early age are directly linked to successful learning as children mature. Furthermore, children who enter

school ready to learn are more likely to achieve to high standards than children who are inadequately

prepared. High-quality early childhood programs are particularly important for children from families with

limited education and for children with disabilities. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Financial support for children who are educationally disadvantaged or have disabilities. 

– The Department’s $115 million request for the Even Start program would support projects providing

early childhood education, adult education, and parenting instruction that helps prepare low-income

children to enter school.

– The $374 million request for Special Education Preschool Grants program is intended to help ensure

that 3 to 5-year-old children with disabilities are ready to enter first grade on an equal footing with their

peers without disabilities.

– The Department is requesting $370 million for Special Education Infants and Families program to

expand the numbers of children served, improve the scope and quality of services, and meet the rising

costs of administering statewide systems of early intervention services for all children with disabilities,

from birth through age 2, and their families.

– The budget includes $35 million for new Transition to School Demonstration grants that would test

promising approaches for ensuring that the educational gains disadvantaged children make in Head

Start and other preschool programs are sustained once those children enter the elementary grades.

#Research, development, and technical assistance. Provide support based on new knowledge of brain

development, early intervention, and high quality nurturing. 

– Synthesize models of effective early intervention and share with Even Start, Title I preschool, and

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) preschool projects and with states, local districts,

and community-based organizations.

– Continue to improve the knowledge base on early intervention programs through the interagency Early

Childhood Research Working Group convened by the National Institute on Early Childhood

Development and Education. In addition to Department of Education members, this group includes

members from the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, the Department of Agriculture, the Child

Care Bureau, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

– Request $7.4 million to fund the research and development activities of the National Institute on Early

Childhood Development and Education, which include supporting the National Center for Early

Development and Learning at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

#Improvement of Even Start.

– Encourage agreements between Even Start participating parents and Even Start projects that would

establish developmentally appropriate outcomes for children and provide for mutual responsibility for

achievement of those outcomes. 

– Provide for pilot testing of developmentally appropriate materials that enable children to progress

through preschool, enter school ready to learn, and sustain success in school by supporting the linkage

between learning activities in Even Start projects and in the home. 

– Help Even Start projects to set appropriate performance goals and measure progress accordingly.

Provide assistance to projects to conceptualize progress indicators for the entire Even Start age range. 

#Tutor training. Work with the Partnership for Family Involvement, Read*Write*Now, and the America

Reads Challenge initiative to provide training for tutors to work with special populations, such as

children from low-income families, or children with limited English proficiency or disabilities.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 33

66% 72%

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of 3-5 Year-Olds Whose Parents Report 

Reading or Telling Stories to Them Regularly

Figure 19

Coordination with Health and Human Services

#Indicators coordination. Work with the Head Start Bureau to more closely align indicators of progress

and quality between the Even Start program and the Head Start program.

#New HHS initiative. Work with HHS to coordinate ED’s preschool programs with the efforts of the

proposed “Early Learning Fund,” which would support programs that improve early learning and the

quality and safety of child care.

#“Communities Can” initiative. Support HHS’ “Communities Can” initiative to promote school-linked

services for young children and their families.

#Indicators coordination. Work with HHS to incorporate the Federal Interagency Forum on Child and

Family Statistics’ indicators of child well-being into all programs; including Even Start. 

#Information exchange, research coordination. Use the interagency Early Childhood Research Working

Group convened by the National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education to exchange

and share current research-based information about young children and their families and to provide

opportunities for interagency research collaboration. Use the findings from this exchange, such as the

information provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development on language and

literacy development, to improve programs across federal departments. 

Programs supporting this objective

Grants for services

#Head Start

#Title I Preschool

#IDEA Grants for Infants and Families ( Part C)

#IDEA Preschool Grants (Part B)

#IDEA state grants (Part B)

#Even Start

#Inexpensive Book Distribution (Reading is

Fundamental)

#Ready to Learn Television

#Goals 2000 Parental Assistance

Research

#National Research Institute for Early Childhood

Education

#IDEA: Research and Innovation

#Statistics and Assessment

Technical assistance and dissemination

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers 

#IDEA Parent Information Centers

#IDEA: Technical Assistance and Dissemination

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators in the Strategic Plan for objective 2.1 focus on indicators that track the access to

learning activities for children prior to kindergarten. 

The percentage of 3-to-5-year-olds whose parents read to them or tell them stories regularly will

continuously increase. (Goal 2, indicator 3)

Indicator background and context. Reading

to children helps them build their vocabularies,

an important factor in school success. Thus,

frequent reading by parents to their children is

an important activity in preparing children for

school. Only two-thirds of preschoolers were

read to or told stories regularly in 1993. By

1996, the proportion of preschoolers whose

parents read to them or told them stories

regularly had increased to 72 percent. 

Data source. National Center for Education

Statistics, National Household Education

Survey, 1993, 1996.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 34

73% 75% 76%

72%

76%

45% 47% 49%

43%

51%

1991 1992 1993 1993 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Preschool Participation of Children 

From Low- and High-Income Families

High-income families

Low-income families

Goal

Estimated

Figure 20

The disparity in preschool participation rates between children from high-income families and

children from low-income families will become increasingly smaller. (Goal 2, indicator 2)

Indicator background and

context. In 1991, 45 percent of 3-

to-5-year-olds from low-income

families were enrolled in preschool

programs, compared to 73 percent

of those from high-income

families. Despite the importance of

improving preschool participation

rates for at-risk children, the

disparity in preschool participation

rates had not improved by 1996. 

Data source. National Center for

Education Statistics, National

Household Education Survey,

1991 - 1996.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Data from independent evaluations of Even Start and

other federal programs, as well as statistical surveys of the early childhood education and households

conducted by the National Center of Education Statistics (NCES “Early Childhood Longitudinal Study”). 

The Planning and Evaluation Service monitors the Even Start program through the Even Start Program

Information Reporting System information system.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 35

Objective 2.2. Every child reads well and independently by the

end of the third grade.

Context: Reading is the foundation of all other skills essential for learning, yet the National Assessment

of Educational Progress reports that only 60 percent of 4th graders read at the basic level or higher. This is

alarming because research shows that students who fail to read well by 4th grade are at greater risk of

educational failure. Mastering basic skills like reading is the essential first step to reaching challenging

academic standards in all subjects.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Community-wide extended learning time programs in reading. Develop America Reads Challenge

sites in each state that coordinate large extended learning, community-wide tutor/reading efforts linking

families, schools (Title I, special education, and regular education programs) and other community

partners. Provide $260 million in 1999 for the America Reads Challenge (ARC) to support extended

learning reading opportunities; expand the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program to $200

million to support 4,000 before- and after-school programs that include reading; provide $900 million

for Federal Work-Study to 100,000 Work-Study students for ARC sites and other community extended

learning, literacy efforts. 

#Services for special populations. Encourage coordination among regular education, Title I, special

education, and bilingual education reading programs for children to strengthen services to special

populations. Place ARC sites in Empowerment Zones/Enterprise Communities to encourage support to

high poverty Title I and Even Start students; provide $200 million to Education Opportunity Zones to

effect reforms and raise standards in high poverty communities. Provide $7.8 billion in Title I Grants to

Local Educational Agencies to support state and local efforts to help approximately 10.5 million

disadvantaged students; provide $3.8 billion for Special Education Grants to States to help states and

school districts improve the quality of education provided to students with disabilities; provide

$168 million to Bilingual Education Instructional Services to help increase the proportion of limited

English proficient children that meet or exceed the basic level in reading.

#Improvement in K-3 reading instruction. Improve the instructional practice of K-3 reading teachers

through the America Reads Challenge. Disseminate findings on quality reading instruction and

interventions from the National Academy of Sciences study. Provide $1.1 billion to the Class Size

Reduction Initiative to help ensure that every child receives individualized reading attention.

#Coordinated leadership and tools for systemic reform in reading. Develop a coordinated strategy

among ED programs (Title I, special education, bilingual, and family literacy) for improved

implementation of reading programs at the State and local level. Encourage community-level coordinated

systemic reform in reading by developing “A Compact for Learning in Reading.” Support the

development and implementation of a National Voluntary Test in reading.

#Early childhood literacy activities in childcare settings and preschools. Partner America Reads pilot

sites with Even Start and Head Start family literacy programs. Disseminate quality early literacy

materials to family/home childcare settings and preschools. Provide $115 million to Even Start to

support family literacy projects for children from birth through age 7.

#Research, evaluation, and dissemination. Develop a coordinated research agenda that builds on current

and past research and evaluation findings in reading. Disseminate the National Academy of Science

reading findings; collaborate with National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)

to launch 5-year study on acquisition of English and the teaching and learning of reading.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 36

#Coordination and collaboration. More effectively coordinate and promote reading strategies, programs,

and research within and outside the Department. Develop interagency collaborations and leverage key

reading professional organizations like International Reading Association, National Council for Teachers

of English, and American Library Association.

Coordination

#Corporation for National Services (CNS). Coordinate 65 ARC Pilot Sites with CNS grantee sites using

CNS volunteer tutors; information and assistance to Challenge sites from State Commissioners and State

Education Agency assistance to CNS sites; cross-use of CNS and Department publications for the

Challenge as well as collaboratively develop materials; cross-use of CNS and Department websites; and

cross-use of College Work Study students to support CNS and Department ARC sites.

#Health and Human Services (HHS). Coordinate reading publications development and dissemination; 

outreach to early childhood caregivers (Head Start and Resource and Referral Network); and community

collaboration of HHS and Department funded activities for reading and early childhood.

#National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Coordinate support of NAS Study on At-Risk Reading and

dissemination and outreach of NAS research findings.

#National Institute of Health (NICHD). Collaborate with NICHD on a five year study on acquisition of

English and the teaching and learning of reading. ED grants will be awarded that model NICHD research

for the learning disabled population.

#U.S. Department of Justice. Collaborate with Justice’s Weed and Seed Program to train program

directors in using Weed and Seed sites as Challenge extended learning settings; and to provide materials

for reading to Weed and Seed sites.

 

#U.S. Army. Collaborate with the Army to train staff directors to use ARC: READ*WRITE*NOW!

interventions and material in Army extended learning programs.

#Bureau of Indian Affairs. Coordinate with the Bureau of Indian Affairs schools to encourage extended

learning in reading programs that support the Challenge.

Programs supporting this objective

Grants supporting reading services

#Title I

#Even Start

#Bilingual Education

#IDEA, Part B

#Education for Homeless Children and Youth

#Inexpensive Book Distribution

Tutoring and after-school programs

#Federal Work-Study

#21st Century Community Learning Centers

#Fund for the Improvement of Education

Standards for reading instruction

#Goals 2000 Educate America Act

Initiatives supporting reading

#Class Size Reduction Initiative

#HHS’ Childcare Initiative

Teacher training

#Eisenhower Professional Development

#Higher Education Act (HEA), Title IV-Part C 

(proposed legislation); Title V (preservice)

#IDEA: Personnel Preparation

Technical assistance

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers 

Research

#Regional Education Labs

#National Research Institute on At Risk

 Children

#Statistics and Assessment

#IDEA: Research and Innovation
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 37

60% 65% 68%

1994 1998 2000

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Goal Goal

Percent of 4th Graders Scoring at the Basic or 

Higher Level on the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress

Figure 21

500,000

700,000

850,000

1,000,000

1997 1998 2000 2002

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

Volunteer Tutors Trained and Working in 

Community Reading Programs

Number of tutors

Goal

Goal

Figure 22

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators in the Strategic Plan for objective 2.2 focus on expected outcomes in student

achievement in reading, as well as indicators that track the implementation of recent programs to advance

these outcomes.

Increasing percentages of fourth-graders will meet basic, proficient, and advanced levels in reading on

the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (Goal 2, indicator 4)

Indicator background and context. Over the last

30 years, NAEP scores for fourth graders have

been relatively stable (60% at basic or higher

levels).

Data source. NAEP (1994-present)

By 2002, one million volunteer tutors are trained and working in community reading programs.

Indicator background and context. In

1997, about 500,000 volunteer tutors were

trained and working in community ARC

reading programs. 

Data source. U. S. Department of

Education, Office of America Reads

Challenge: READ*WRITE*NOW!.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Student reading outcomes use the rigorously designed

National Assessment of Education Progress. Information on the training of reading teachers will be from an

independently conducted evaluation of Title I schools. Tutor numbers and quality will be obtained from

independent evaluations of college student participation in Federal Work Study and of tutors in the America

Reads Challenge.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 38

Objective 2.3. Every eighth-grader masters challenging

mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and

geometry.

Context: Mathematics is a basic skill—the gateway to learning many more advanced skills, and a

prerequisite for success in a wide variety of careers. Results from the Third International Mathematics and

Science Study (TIMSS), which compared mathematics and science achievement of students from the U.S.

and other countries, show that the U.S. is the only country that scored above the international average at

the fourth grade and below the international average at the eighth grade. Mathematics, like reading, has a

key academic turning point; for mathematics this occurs around the eighth grade. Ninth-graders are often

put on different tracks that they follow through high school and beyond; mathematics often determines what

that track will be. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#ED-NSF action strategy. Support the ED-NSF Action Strategy to improve mathematics instruction and

achievement through the $33.7 million request in new funding for Eisenhower Professional Development

Federal Activities (which is coupled with an NSF request for $28 million), including $22 million to

develop professional development leaders, support teacher networks, support capacity-building grants to

assist school districts in planning coherent use of federal and other funds to improve mathematics

education, and create technology-based materials that emphasize teaching for conceptual understanding

of mathematics while at the same time ensuring mastery of the basics.

#Research-based information and public engagement in mathematics education improvement.

Provide high-quality instructional materials over the Internet. The request for Eisenhower Professional

Development Federal Activities also includes a $10 million request to significantly expand technical

assistance in mathematics and science education, and $1.7 million to expand the dissemination of

professional development and mathematics materials through the Eisenhower Consortia and National

Clearinghouse. Support the development of a National Voluntary Test in mathematics and encourage

support among urban school districts. Launch ED-NSF national information and engagement campaign

based on using challenging mathematics items and student work to inform the public and provide

opportunities for parents and volunteers to support improved student achievement. Develop and widely

disseminate clear, research-based information on the importance of challenging middle school

mathematics. 

#Research and evaluation. Support research from many disciplines on such areas as (1) the implications

of recent brain research on cognitive development and early learning, (2) classroom-based strategies for

improving student achievement in mathematics and reading, and (3) the contributions that technology can

make to teaching and learning reading and mathematics through the $50 million request for an

interagency research initiative involving the Department and the National Science Foundation (which will

contribute an additional $25 million). Conduct additional Third International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS) studies, evaluate the Eisenhower State Professional Development program, school

implementation of standards-based reform and the Title I program, and develop a continuous feedback

system for monitoring the effectiveness of Department strategies.

#Challenging state standards and services to special populations, such as students who are lowincome and disadvantaged. Support state and local efforts to help low-income and low-achieving

students meet challenging state and performance standards in mathematics that states are required to have

in place by the 1997-98 school year through the $7.8 billion request for Title I Grants to Local

Educational Agencies. The Department is requesting $476 million for Goals 2000 State Grants, which

will support the development of assessments aligned with the content and performance standards in
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 39

mathematics that states are expected to put in place by 1998. The budget includes a $200 million

Education Opportunity Zones investment in FY 1999 and $1.5 billion over 5 years would strengthen

schools and help students master basic and advanced skills where the need is greatest—in urban and rural

communities with concentrated poverty and low expectations for student performance. 

#Teacher recruitment, preparation, and support. Emphasize the importance of providing sustained,

intensive, high-quality professional development for mathematics teachers in grades 5-8, as called for in

the ED-NSF Action Strategy for improving achievement in mathematics. The $335 million request for

Eisenhower Professional Development State Grants helps states train teachers to prepare their students to

meet high standards in all core subjects, but the program reserves $250 million for professional

development in mathematics and the sciences. The Department’s proposal for the reauthorization of Title

V of the Higher Education Act includes $30 million for a Lighthouse Partnerships program that would

identify a variety of institutions that prepare teachers well, and promote the expansion of their best

practices to other institutions. In selecting Lighthouse Partnerships, priority would be given to institutions

committed to preparing teachers of mathematics and of reading. Promote improved preparation of

teachers of mathematics. Support development by mathematics professional organizations of exemplary

standards for mathematical preparation of K - 12 teachers. Identify existing exemplary teacher

preparation programs in mathematics and gain college commitments to support high quality teacher

preparation. 

#High Hopes College-school partnerships. Ensure that children have access to the rigorous core courses,

especially algebra and geometry, that prepare them for college. The President’s FY 1999 budget includes

$140 million to promote partnerships between colleges and middle or junior high schools in low-income

communities to get and keep students on the track to college. 

#Extended learning time for mathematics. Promote learning and enrichment in such areas as computer

skills, math and reading, as well as the arts, drama, music and community service through expansion of

the 21st Century Community Learning Center Program.

Coordination

#ED-NSF interagency strategy. Coordinate with Departments of Commerce, Interior, Transportation,

Defense, Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Institutes of Health, and the National

Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA), in partnership with NSF, to implement an interagency

action strategy for improving achievement in mathematics and science. This strategy will lay out a

coordinated set of activities for NSF and ED, as well as other agencies, and is guiding budgetary and

programmatic priorities. Some of these activities are listed below.

#National Science Foundation. Jointly award capacity-building grants with NSF to strengthen the

coordination of federal programs in supporting challenging mathematics. 

Programs supporting this objective

State Grants

#Title I

#IDEA Part B

Standards for mathematics instruction

#Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Technical assistance and dissemination

#Fund for the Improvement of Education 

#Eisenhower Federal Activities

#Eisenhower Regional Consortia 

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 40

 Percent of Eighth-Grade Students Who 

Score at or above the Basic Level on 

NAEP-Mathematics

54% 56%

61%

70%

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Goal

Figure 23

45%

60%

1995 2002

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of Eighth-Grade Students Who Score at or 

above the International Average on TIMSS

(Third International Math and Science Study)

Goal

Figure 24

Teacher training

#Eisenhower Professional Development State

Grants 

#Higher Education Act (HEA), Title V

Research

#National Education Research Institutes

#Regional Education Laboratories

#Eisenhower Professional Development Federal

Activities

#IDEA: Research and Dissemination

#Statistics and Assessment

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators for objective 2.3 focus on expected outcomes for students in mathematics and on

progress in implementing key strategies to achieve these results. The Department is monitoring progress on

this objective in terms of the national trends in teacher preparation and ongoing professional development,

student course taking, and schools’ access to and use of information on best practices for mathematics

instruction. The Department is also focusing on increasing public understanding and support for mastering

challenging mathematics by the end of the eighth grade. 

Increasing percentages of eighth-graders reach the basic level or higher levels of proficiency in math

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); on international assessments, at least

60% will score at the international average by 2002. (Goal 2, indicator 8)

Indicator background and context. U.S. students have shown progress in their mathematics achievement

on NAEP over the years, yet many still fail to achieve to the high standards needed for future success. In

1996, 61 percent of students scored at or above the basic level on NAEP compared to 51 percent in 1990.

In 1996, 45 percent of U.S. eighth-graders scored at the international average on the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS showed that although U.S. fourth-graders perform

above the international average in math, our eighth-graders, and twelfth graders scored below the

international average. Data source. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 1990, 1992,

1996 Mathematics Assessment. The Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 1995

8th-grade Assessment. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 41

28%

40%

1994 1996 1998 2000

Year Data Collected

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Percent of teachers who participated in an 

in-depth professional development program in 

mathematics and science

Goal

Figure 25

Each year, more teachers in grades 5-8 will complete intensive professional development to enable

them to teach challenging mathematics. (Goal 2, indicator 11)

Indicator background and context.

Only 28 percent of U.S. teachers

participated in an in-depth professional

development program in mathematics. 

Data source. Schools and Staffing

Surveys, 1993-94. 

Verification/validation of performance measures: Indicator data will draw from rigorously designed

surveys (e.g., the National Assessment of Educational Progress, replication of the Third International

Mathematics and Science Study at the eighth grade, and ongoing administration of the Schools and Staffing

Surveys. Independently conducted program evaluations at school and district levels will assess staff access

to, knowledge of, and use of best practices information.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 42

Objective 2.4. Special populations receive appropriate services

and assessments consistent with high standards.

Context: Students with special needs should benefit from the same high quality schooling as all

students, plus extra supports to help them succeed. These children—who are a focus of key elementary and

secondary education programs—may include students in high-poverty schools, students with limitedEnglish proficiency or disabilities, migrant students, and homeless students. Federal support is critical to

ensuring that these students are not left behind in the drive for higher standards. 

#Main financial support.

– The $7.8 billion request for Title I Grants to Local Educational Agencies is intended to help states and

school districts ensure that low-income, disadvantaged students are able to meet the same high

standards expected of all children. The program gives states and schools substantial flexibility

—including waivers from federal rules that impede improved achievement and school wide reforms for

schools with a majority of poor students—in exchange for helping disadvantaged students meet high

state standards. This will be supplemented with a $50 million increase for Title I Migrant Education.

– The $3.8 billion request for IDEA Grants to States is intended to improve the quality of education for

children with disabilities so that these children can, to the maximum extent possible, meet the same

challenging standards that have been established for all children, while also preparing them for

employment and independent living. 

– The Department is also seeking $168 million for Bilingual Education Instructional Services, which

supports projects designed to develop the English language skills of participating students and to help

them meet the same challenging standards expected of all students.

#Ensuring appropriate assessments for all children. Disseminate guidance and provide technical

support regarding accommodations for assessing children with limited English proficiency and children

with disabilities to states, local school districts, technical assistance providers, and teacher education

institutions. Draw upon the resources and expertise of a panel convened by the National Academy of

Sciences, as well as identify and disseminate promising practices at the state and local levels. 

#Monitoring student progress. Encourage the adoption of national assessments in fourth grade reading

and eighth grade mathematics to enable states, districts, schools, and parents to benchmark their

students’ performance against a common measure of achievement aligned with challenging standards.

#Attention to equity. Implement guidance on testing and assessments that may involve high stakes

assessments of special populations. The guidance was developed in 1998 by the Office of Civil Rights

(OCR). 

#Highly qualified teachers. Promote the training and recruitment of teachers to serve children with

special needs (e.g., limited English proficiency and special education) and for high-poverty areas. The

President is seeking $1.1 billion in funding over the next 7 years to support states in hiring 100,000 new

teachers as part of a Class Size Reduction Initiative. The goal of the initiative is to help reduce class sizes

nationwide in grades 1-3 to an average of 18 students per class. Funds would be distributed to states on

the basis of the Title I formula, and the funding match would be lower for high-poverty districts. In

addition, the budget includes $67 million for a new Teacher Recruitment and Preparation program that

would recruit new teachers for the high-poverty urban and rural areas that have the most difficulty in

attracting and retaining a high-quality teaching force.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 43

#Research, dissemination and implementation of effective practices. Expand the scope of EDsupported research and dissemination, and the implementation of strategies to support the education of

students with special needs and in high-poverty districts.

– The $175 million request for Demonstrations of Comprehensive School Reform would support awards

helping some 3,500 urban and rural schools to carry out comprehensive, research-based educational

reforms. 

– The $200 million Education Opportunity Zones initiative would assist urban and rural school

districts—with high concentrations of children from low-income families—to implement educational

reform strategies linked to challenging standards for all students, accountability for results, expanded

public school choice, and interventions in failing schools.

– The budget also includes $15.5 million for the National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students,

which helps develop and disseminate instructional methods for improving the achievement of students

at risk of educational failure. The Institute supports the Center for Improving Achievement for At-Risk

Students, which conducts research and development into "whole school" reforms that help all students

in a school become high achievers, as well as the Center for Research on Education, Diversity and

Excellence, which works to improve educational results for students from diverse cultural and

linguistic backgrounds.

– The $291 million requested for Special Education National Activities, will continue to support a wide

range of services supporting state and local efforts to educate children with disabilities. These funds

facilitate state improvement efforts, research and innovation to help children with disabilities meet high

standards, technical assistance, preparation of personnel who work with children with disabilities,

information centers to help parents meet the education needs of their children with disabilities, and

media services (such as captioning) for individuals with disabilities.

#School infrastructure and capacity. The Administration is requesting federal tax credits to pay the

interest on nearly $22 billion in school modernization bonds that may be used to construct or renovate

public school facilities. One-half of the bond authority would be allocated to the 100 school districts with

the largest number of low-income children. The proposal calls for the issuance of $1l.1 billion in interestfree bonds in 1999 and an identical amount in 2000. The $475 million request for the Technology

Literacy Challenge Fund would support grants to states that are used to buy hardware, connect schools to

the Internet, train teachers to use technology, and develop and buy software. Funds are distributed to

states on the basis of the Title I formula, and participating states are required to submit a statewide

technology plan that includes long-term strategies for assisting the school districts with the largest

numbers or percentages of poor children and the greatest need for technology in the classroom.

#Extending opportunities for learning. Support after-school activities that are of particular benefit to

special populations, through financial support, technical assistance, information sharing, and

development of a continuous improvement project management guide. A greatly expanded, $200 million

21st Century Community Learning Centers program would support approximately 4,000 before- and

after-school programs—serving up to half a million students—that would keep schools open as safe

havens while providing extended learning activities to improve student achievement and prevent juvenile

violence and substance abuse. The Department will closely coordinate this program with supporting

activities that will be funded through a five-year, $55 million private donation by the C.S. Mott

Foundation aimed at enhancing the quality of before- and after-school programs.

Coordination

#Children of families with special needs. Expand coordination efforts with the Departments of Health

and Human Services and Labor to ensure that children from families moving from welfare to work and

others with special needs (e.g., migratory workers, homeless families) receive opportunities to participate

fully in educational activities—both during, and before and after school—that are aimed at helping them

to reach high standards.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 44

#President’s Hispanic Education Initiative. Build upon public and private partnerships, initiated through

the President’s Hispanic Education Initiative to support increased family and community involvement in

education. For example, with the Partnership for Family Involvement, promote America Reads and other

efforts to support a greater emphasis on reading through Spanish language television, radio and print

media. The President’s budget request includes increases totaling $217 million for programs that show

particular promise in addressing the special needs of Hispanic Americans. These include a doubling of

funding for Bilingual Professional Development to $50 million and a $50 million increase for Title I

Migrant Education. 

#Support for homeless children. Continue to collaborate—as a member of the Interagency Council on

Homelessness—on a National Survey of Homeless Assistance Providers and Clients with the

Departments of Agriculture, Commerce/Census, Energy, Health and Human Services/Social Security

Administration, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor and Transportation, and the Federal

Emergency Management Administration.

#Juvenile justice. Coordinate with the Department of Justice in developing a Census of Residential

Juvenile Facilities—a multidisciplinary project that will collect information on juveniles in detention and

correctional custody, including data on education. 

Programs supporting this objective

Grants to states, districts and schools for direct

services

#Goals 2000 Grants to States

#Title I Grants to Local Education Agencies

#Comprehensive Reform Demonstration Program

Targeted grants to support special populations

#Even Start

#Title I Migrant Education

#Title I Neglected or Delinquent 

#Education of Homeless Children and Youth

#IDEA State Grants (Part B) 

#Indian Education

#Bilingual Education

# Adult Education 

#TRIO Higher Education Programs

# Office for Civil Rights

Research and evaluation

# National Education Research Institutes

#IDEA: Research and Improvement

#Statistics and Assessment

Programs in other agencies

#Bureau of Indian Affairs (Interior)

# Homeless Assistance Programs (HHS)

# Migrant Assistance Programs (HHS and Labor)

Selected performance indicators and charts

The Department is monitoring this objective by examining progress by states, districts and schools in

implementing effective strategies for teaching students with special needs, and tracking the results.

Outcomes are measured by examining trends in the achievement of students in high-poverty schools

compared to overall national achievement.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 45

Number of States that Report

Performance Results for At-Risk Students

50 50

11

5

0

10

20

30

40

50

Limited English

proficient children

Children from Low 

Income Families

1997 2000 1997 2000

Goal Goal

States

Figure 27

At-Risk Fourth-Graders' NAEP Perfomance

Percent Scoring at or above the Basic Level

on the National Assessment of Educational Progress

1994 1998

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

(60%)

50%

Goal for

high 

poverty

schools High 

poverty 

schools

(All schools)

26%

1996 2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Reading Math

(64%)

(All schools)

High 

poverty 

schools

42%

50%

Goal for

high 

poverty

schools

Figure 26

Students in high-poverty schools will show continuous improvement in achieving proficiency levels

compared to those for the nation. (Goal 1, indicator 2)

Indicator background and

context. Poverty has a

substantial impact on student

achievement, as illustrated by the

performance of fourth graders on

the NAEP assessment in reading

and mathematics. In 1994, fourth

graders in high poverty schools

scored considerably below the

national average, with only 26

percent able to score at or above

NAEP’s basic level. While scores

were closer on math, poverty

school students still scored much

lower. The goal is to bring the

scores closer to that for all

schools.

Data source. Educational Testing

Service. Special analysis of NAEP, 1997-98; U.S. Department of Education. NAEP 1994 Reading A First

Look: Findings from the National Assessment of

Educational Progress, and NAEP, 1996: Mathematics Report Card for the Nation and the States. 

Federal technical assistance and other support to states will result in annual increases in the number

of states and local districts with the capacity to disaggregate and report out assessment data aligned

with standards for at-risk students. (Goal 1, indicator 17)

Indicator background and context. By

the year 2001, Title I of ESEA requires

that states establish accountability

systems that track the progress of

students from special populations (e.g.,

limited English proficient), and report

progress to parents and local

communities. Therefore, progress of

states in reporting assessment data for atrisk students will be tracked annually.

Data source. Council of Chief State

School Officers. State Education

Indicators with a Focus on Title I, 1997.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Independent program evaluations by the Planning and

Evaluation Service will validate State-reported program information. The rigorously designed National

Assessment of Education Progress will provide an independent benchmark on State-reported student

outcomes for at-risk populations. The Congressionally mandated Independent Review Panel, is reviewing

all surveys and results for quality.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 46

Objective 3.1. Secondary school students get the information,

skills, and support they need to prepare successfully for

postsecondary education.

Context: The Department of Education supports significant levels of postsecondary student financial

assistance—estimated at nearly $51 billion for fiscal year 1999. Research has shown, however, that

information about the benefits of college, academic requirements, and the availability of financial aid can

be as critical as ensuring financial assistance in motivating students and families to begin planning early for

college education.

Key strategies for FY 1999

# National campaign for middle-school students.

– A new $15 million Early Awareness Information program would develop a series of media products,

including videos, a website, and publications, to inform middle and high school students and their

families, as well as the general public, about student aid opportunities, the steps that need to be taken

to attend college, and the availability of student aid. A major product will be a toolkit for middle

schools and colleges containing reference information about postsecondary education costs, benefits,

and preparation. In addition, this program would encourage adult learners to take advantage of the new

tax credits for postsecondary education and go back to school to learn new skills.

– Conduct a survey to measure current levels of student awareness of the academic requirements for

college, college costs and student aid. And to inform the national middle school campaign

#Support services to help students prepare for postsecondary education. 

– The $583 million request for TRIO would increase support for the Upward Bound and Talent Search

programs, which identify disadvantaged middle school and high school students and provide academic

and career counseling, information and assistance on postsecondary admission and financial aid, and

tutoring services. The 1999 budget request of $583 million for TRIO would provide services to almost

389,000 Upward Bound and Talent Search students.

– As proposed in the FY 99 budget, the new $140 million High Hopes program would bring colleges,

middle and junior high schools, businesses, and community organizations together to give whole grade

levels of children in high poverty schools information on the benefits of college, academic requirements,

and financial aid opportunities, as well as mentoring and tutoring needed to help keep students on track

toward college.

– The budget includes $125 million for the School-to-Work Opportunities program, which helps states

implement systems connecting secondary school classrooms to the world of work and preparing

students for a wide range of postsecondary education opportunities.

#A student- and family-focused “system” to support postsecondary education using computer and

information technologies.

– Determine the legal and technical requirements of using the electronic signature to simplify the process

of electronically applying for student financial aid through the World Wide Web.

– Coordinate with partners in the community, including schools, lenders, and guarantee agencies, to

establish industry standards for data exchanges needed to operate the system. 

#Vocational education support for technical skill training. 

– The Department’s budget request for $1.137 billion for Vocational Education State Grants and TechPrep Education will support state and local efforts to increase students’ technical skills, integrate

academic and vocational education, link secondary and postsecondary education, relate classroom

learning to experiences outside the classroom in the workplace, and develop models of high school

reform.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 47

1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90% High income

Low income

Percentage of High School Graduates 

(aged 18-19) Enrolled in College,

Percent by Family Income 

enrolled

(Low income = bottom 20%. High income = top 20%.)

Figure 28

Coordination

#Public awareness campaigns. Continue to obtain input and support from numerous public and private

organizations, such as the National Middle School Association, the College Board, and Boy Scouts of

America (Learning for Life), in designing and implementing the Early Awareness Information program,

ED-NSF national mathematics public engagement campaign, and High Hopes program. In addition, work

to ensure that the three programs are well-coordinated and mutually reinforcing.

#Dissemination of research. Coordinate the TRIO clearinghouse with other ERIC clearinghouses to

better disseminate research on the preparation of disadvantaged youth for postsecondary education.

Programs supporting this objective

Information and support services

#Early Awareness Information

#High Hopes College-School Partnerships

#TRIO (Upward Bound and Talent Search)

#American Printing House for the Blind

#Migrant education (HEP and CAMP)

#IDEA Part B

Research

#Statistics and Assessment

Vocational Education

#Vocational Education State Grants

#Tech-Prep Education

Selected performance indicators and charts

The performance indicators included in the Strategic Plan for objective 3.1 relate to expected outcomes of

the early college awareness postsecondary education programs and improvements in the student financial

aid application system including: increasing college enrollment rates, particularly for low income students;

creating greater awareness of the costs of attending college, the availability of financial aid and the

academic requirements of college enrollment; and reducing the time needed to process financial aid

applications.

Postsecondary education enrollment rates will increase each year for all students while the enrollment

gap between low- and high-income and minority and non-minority high school graduates will decrease

each year. (Goal 3, indicator 1)

Indicator background and context. In

1996, 49.1 percent of low-income high

school graduates, aged 18-19, were

enrolled in college, compared to 79.3

percent of high-income students. (Lowincome students are from families in the

bottom 20 percent of all family incomes.

High-income families are in the top 20

percent.)

Over the period of 1975 through 1996, the

postsecondary education enrollment rates

of both low- and high-income students

have tended to increase. However, despite

some fluctuations, the gap in enrollment

rates between these groups has remained

fairly stable over this period. It is expected

that the Early Awareness Information

program, High Hopes College-School

Partnerships program, TRIO programs,
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 48

8 days

4 days

1997 2001

0

2

4

6

8

10

Processing Time for Electronic Student

Financial Aid Applications

Goal

Requires approval of 

electronic signature 

Days

Figure 29

and reform efforts at the elementary and secondary school level will increase student interest in, and

preparation for, postsecondary education, thereby leading to continued increases in postsecondary

enrollment rates, particularly for low-income students. 

Data source. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, October Current Population Surveys.

By October 2001 there will be a single point of contact that allows students to get information on

federal student aid, apply for aid, and have their eligibility for aid determined within four days of

electronic application, cutting in half the current processing time. (Requires approval of electronic

signature.) (Goal 3, indicator 4)

Indicator background and context. The current

processing time for electronic applications for

federal student financial aid is eight days. A

streamlined mechanism for electronically

applying for student financial aid through the

world wide web will give prospective students

and their families a single electronic point of

contact for all federal student aid programs, and

eventually, with the cooperation of the

postsecondary education community, this system

will respond to all their financial aid questions,

including estimates of likely federal aid amounts

and costs associated with attending specific

schools. Note that a reduction in the processing

time for electronic applications from eight to four

days can only be achieved with approval of the

electronic signature. 

Data source. Program data.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Data on performance indicators will be obtained

through independent surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Census

Bureau which are subject to standards regarding statistical precision and response rates. An independent

customer survey is also planned to provide an external check on program reported data on student

awareness, usage, and satisfaction.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 49

Objective 3.2. Postsecondary students receive the financial aid

and support services they need to enroll in and complete their

educational program.

Context: Progress made toward achievement of Goals 1 and 2 and Objective 3.1 will help ensure that

all students are prepared for college. Objective 3.2 is intended to provide the financial and support services

these students need to achieve their postsecondary educational objectives.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Student financial assistance. Department student aid programs will support nearly $51 billion in grant,

loan, and work-study assistance to 8.8 million postsecondary students:

S A $7.6 billion request for Pell Grants would increase the maximum award by $100 to $3,100 and

provide grants to more than 3.9 million students.

S A $900 million request for Work-Study would increase the number of recipients by 75,000 to more

than 1 million.

S A $619 million request for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants would support grants of up

to $4,000 for more than 1 million students who receive Pell Grants or demonstrate exceptional

financial need.

S The request for Perkins Loans in conjunction with the revolving fund would maintain current levels of

low-interest loan support for 788,000 students.

S The Federal Family Education Loans and Federal Direct Student Loan programs would support

9.1 million loans to postsecondary students totaling an estimated $33.9 billion.

S In addition to the $51 billion in student aid awards, an estimated 5.5 million students would receive

$4.2 billion in HOPE Scholarship credits in 1999, while an additional 7.1 million students would

benefit from $2.5 billion in Lifetime Learning credits.

S A $20 million request for the new Access and Retention Innovations program would provide critical

data on the effects of different student aid packages on postsecondary access and retention needed to

better understand and, possibly, heklp redesign the student aid programs.

#Support services for postsecondary students. 

S The $583 million request for TRIO would enhance the Student Support Services and McNair

programs, which are designed to encourage individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to complete

college and pursue graduate studies. The request would fund services to an estimated 182,000

disadvantaged postsecondary students.

S Implement recommendations of on-going evaluations to improve the TRIO and Title III programs.

S Improve monitoring of higher education programs through redesigned performance reports and

disseminate information regarding effective practices.

Coordination

#Work with the Treasury Department.

S Consult with the IRS regarding publications for students and schools regarding steps needed for

taxpayers to claim the Hope Scholarship and Lifetime Learning tax credits.

S Consult with the Treasury Department on the setting of student loan interest rates.

#Consult on reauthorization. Initiate discussions with interested groups and organizations regarding the

upcoming passage and then subsequent implementation of the reauthorized Higher Education Act.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 50

14%

20%

29%

25%

1986 1990 1993 1999

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Percent of Graduating College Seniors Whose 

Monthly Education Loan Payments Exceed 10% of 

Their Income in the Year Following Graduation

29%or 

lower 

Goal

Figure 30

Programs supporting this objective

Student grants and loans

#Pell Grants

#Campus-based programs

#Federal Family Education Loans

#Direct Student Loans

Student Fellowships

#Minority Teacher Recruitment

#International Education and Foreign Language

Studies

#Byrd Honors Scholarships

#National Need Graduate Fellowship

Student Support

#TRIO (Student Support Services and McNair)

Aid to higher education institutions

#Title III, Strengthening Institutions

#Howard University

Research, innovation and improvement

#Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

#Statistics and Assessment

#Access and Retention Innovations

#IDEA: Research and Innovation

Selected performance indicators and charts

The performance indicators included in the Strategic Plan for objective 3.2 relate to expected outcomes of

the postsecondary education programs including increasing graduation rates, particularly for low income

students, reducing unmet need and debt burden, and ensuring that recipients of the TRIO programs benefit

from the services they receive. Indicators relating to the Department’s delivery of the postsecondary

education programs are included under objective 3.3.

The percentage of borrowers with student loan debt repayments exceeding 10% of their income will

remain stable or decline over time. (Goal 3, indicator 6)

Indicator background and context.

In general it is believed that

educational debt in excess of 10

percent of income will negatively

affect a borrower’s ability to repay

his or her student loan and to obtain

other credit.

Continued strong funding support for

the Federal Pell Grant and other

student aid programs, successful

implementation of the Hope

Scholarship and Lifetime Learning

tax credits, greated availability of

flexible repayment options, and better

debt counseling for borrowers are

expected to prevent any further

increases in the percentage of

borrowers with student loan debt

repayments in excess of 10 percent of

their income.

Data source. 1986 and 1990 data, Survey of Recent College Graduates; 1993 data, Baccalaureate and

Beyond Study. In the future, the Department will obtain debt burden data for a representative sample of all

borrowers, not just recent college graduates.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 51

Percent of Students Entering Four-Year 

Colleges in 1990 Who Graduated Within 5 Years

57%

47%

40%

34%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Bottom Income Quartile

Second Income Quartile

Third Income Quartile

Highest Income Quartile

Figure 31

Graduation rates for all students in four-year and two-year colleges will improve, while the gap in

completion rates between low- and high-income and minority and non-minority students will decrease.

(Goal 3, indicator 7)

Indicator background and context.

Aiding students in completing their

postsecondary educations is at least

as important as helping them to

enroll.

Funding increases for the student aid

and support service programs are

expected to reduce both financial and

non-financial barriers that may

prevent students, particularly low

income students, from completing

their postsecondary educations.

Data source. Beginning

Postsecondary Student Study,

1990/94; next update, 2002.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Performance data obtained through independent

surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics are subject to strict methodological

standards. Data on the performance of the TRIO programs will be verified by comparing information from

independent evaluations conducted by the Planning and Evaluation Service with that reported by grantees

on their annual performance reports.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 52

Objective 3.3. Postsecondary student aid delivery and program

management is efficient, financially sound, and customerresponsive.

Context: The Department of Education works with 6,000 postsecondary institutions, 4,800 lenders, and

36 guaranty agencies to deliver nearly $51 billion in grant, loan, and work-study assistance to almost

9 million students who rely on federal student aid to pay for college. The Department is ultimately

responsible for the collection of more than $150 billion in outstanding loans, and its data systems track

93 million student loans and 15 million Pell Grants. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

The Department is requesting almost $568 million in mandatory and discretionary funds, or about

60 percent of its total administrative budget, to manage the federal postsecondary student aid programs.

This amount includes, for example, $220 million to administer Direct Loans, $80 million for student aid

delivery (including processing applications, determining student eligibility, and transferring data and funds

between the Department and 6,000 participating postsecondary institutions), and $27 million for the

National Student Loan Data System (which is used to prevent disbursements to students who have

previously defaulted on their student loans). The Department also devotes about 367 full-time equivalent

employees to ensuring the eligibility of postsecondary institutions participating in federal student aid

programs.

The Administration’s FY 1999 President’s Budget identified the modernization of the student aid delivery

system as one of its 22 highest priority management objectives. Following are the Department’s key

modernization strategies and initiatives.

#Electronic interfaces

– Work with the financial aid and banking community and establish industry-wide data standards for

data exchanges needed in administering student financial aid by December, 1999.

– Reduce burden on individuals and simplify application processes by expanding data matches and

exchanges.

– Expand the number of students who apply for financial aid electronically from 1.6 million to 3 million

by October 2001.

– Continue to conduct surveys to determine student and institutional satisfaction with the student aid

delivery system and to provide feedback on ways to improve the system. Specific surveys will focus on

borrowers who applied for loan consolidation in order to determine the timeliness and efficiency of the

process.

#Program oversight

– Test and implement an institutional risk assessment model in order to concentrate compliance and

enforcement activities on poorly performing institutions while reducing burden for low-risk schools. 

– Expand case management approach for high-risk schools encompassing review of recertification

applications, compliance audits, financial statements, and program review findings. 

– Continue identifying high-default institutions, an emphasis which has reduced the default rate by

50 percent and resulted in the removal of 875 schools from participation in federal grant and loan

programs during recent years.

#Loan defaults

– Pursue legislative strategies to restructure guaranty agencies to make them more performance-based

and accountable in order to save taxpayers’ money, increase their efficiency, lower their operating

costs, and improve their coordination with the Department. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 53

– Continue to reduce default costs by improving the quality of data in the National Student Loan Data

System (NSLDS), for which the Department is requesting $26.7 million in 1999, and through better

institutional oversight.

– Analyze and test alternative default rate measures in order to more accurately reflect a variety of

factors that impact default rates. 

– Communicate more effectively to students the message that default is a financially costly process that

often results in adverse credit ratings and subsequent inability to obtain loans and mortgages. 

– Provide more information about the availability of alternative repayment plans linked to earnings. 

#Student aid delivery systems

– Develop an integrated, accurate and efficient student aid delivery system. The Department’s Project

EASI (Easy Access for Students and Institutions), a multi-year effort, will consolidate 16 different

current systems using 12 different contractors into a single integrated system. This will be a studentbased information tracking and data transfer system that links ED, schools, and other student aid

program participants. When fully implemented, EASI will allow students to apply for assistance, to

determine their eligibility for aid, and to have their awards delivered to the school of their choice almost

immediately; will improve student aid data quality by allowing for more effective verification

procedures; and will reduce costs by eliminating redundant systems and errors associated with

duplicative record keeping. As a first step toward implementing EASI, a complete system architecture

will be developed by December, 1998.

– Emphasize improved contractor performance and contract administration to reduce processing error

rates and system delays. 

In addition to these specific strategies, the Department will work towards converting the Office of Student

Financial Assistance Programs to a performance-based organization and aligning policy initiatives to

support Student Financial Aid Programs modernization efforts.

Coordination

#Data matches. Continue to work with Selective Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service

to perform data matches to efficiently and effectively determine eligibility for student aid.

#Income information. Work with the Internal Revenue Service to obtain adjusted gross income and other

tax information on borrowers regarding the repayment of their student loans including tax refund offsets

for defaulted borrowers.

#Tracking defaulters. Work with other federal agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, U.S.

Postal Service, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development to better

track defaulted borrowers and return them to repayment.

#Oversight. The Student Financial Aid Modernization Board will advise the Secretary on a wide range of

student financial aid management issues and make significant steps toward further improving student aid

management practices. 

Programs supporting this objective

See programs listed for Objective 3.2.

Selected performance indicators and charts

The performance indicators included in the Strategic Plan for objective 3.3 consist of a number of measures

designed to assess the Department’s progress in improving the delivery of student aid including default

rates, customer satisfaction levels, audit results, institutional compliance rates, and contract performance.

The cohort default rates—the percentage of borrowers leaving school who default within two

years—for the Federal Family Education Loan and Direct Loan programs, will decline to a level of

10% or less by 2002. (Goal 3, indicator 16)
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 54

'89 '90 '91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01 '02

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

Loan default rate

Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL) 

Default Rates

FY 1990-FY 2002

22.4%

17.8%

15.0%

11.5%

10.7%

10.4%

10.3%

10.2%

10.2%

10.1%

10.1%

10.0%

10.0%

Actual Estimated

Goal

Figure 32

'91 '92 '93 '94 '95 '96 '97 '98 '99 '00 '01

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

Electronic Applications for Student 

Aid,1991-2001 Number of 

electronic 

applications

Actual Estimated

Goal

Figure 33

Indicator background and context.

Although default rates have been

declining sharply from very high

levels over the past several years,

future reductions are likely to be

steady but smaller because of the

large number of high default schools

that have already been eliminated

from the program.

Progress in reducing the default rate

should continue, however, as

institutional oversight initiatives are

implemented and as borrowers

become better informed about the high

cost of default and about alternative

loan repayment plans. 

Data source. Office of Postsecondary Education data, annual.

The annual number of students and families submitting or renewing their student aid applications

electronically will continue to increase each year, almost doubling to 3 million by October, 2001. (Goal

3, indicator 10)

Indicator background and context.

Electronic filing of student aid

applications increases the accuracy

and timeliness of data received by

the Department and results in

quicker student aid approvals for the

student. This will further the goals of

the EASI project and will increase

customer satisfaction.

Data source. Office of

Postsecondary Education (OPE)

program data, annual.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Independent customer satisfaction surveys are

conducted by the Planning and Evaluation Service. A major expected outcome of modernizing the student

aid delivery system will be improvements in data timeliness and accuracy. Data matches with the Internal

Revenue Service and other agencies help ensure data accuracy as will periodic validation evaluations of the

National Student Loan Data System.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 55

Objective 3.4. All adults can strengthen their skills and

improve their earning power over their lifetime through lifelong

learning.

Context: As the world of work changes, many workers need to upgrade their skills and some need to be

retrained for entirely new jobs. Objective 3.4 focuses on providing educational opportunities for these

adults—through postsecondary education, adult basic education, or vocational rehabilitation—that will

lengthen their productive years and benefit the economy by creating a more flexible and highly trained

workforce.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Employment for individuals with disabilities.

– Work with other agencies to fund grants to let state and local consortia identify and work towards

eliminating barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities.

– Use the $2.3 billion request for Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants to support education and

employment-related services, including vocational training and job placement.

#New performance standards for state vocational rehabilitation agencies.

– Issue proposed standards to more effectively measure and require high quality outcomes from all state

vocational rehabilitation programs.

#High quality adult basic education and secondary education.

– Continue studies of “what works” in adult basic education and English as a second language (ESL)

programs to enhance the quality of services.

– Use the $361 million request for Adult Education State Grants to help states increase the number of

adults served and improve the quality of adult education programs to enhance retention and student

achievement.

– Use the $20 million request for an initiative to develop model ESL programs involving different

instructional approaches, delivery methods, teacher qualifications, and resource levels.

#Financial support for postsecondary and employer-provided education.

– Offer grants of up to $3,100 to adults seeking postsecondary education and training with the $7.6

billion request for the Pell Grant program (adults comprise an estimated 10 percent of Pell Grant

recipients).

– Pilot the use of technology and other innovations in non-traditional education to improve the delivery of

postsecondary education and lifelong learning opportunities for all citizens with the $30 million

proposal for Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships.

– Encourage adult learners to go back to school to learn new skills with the new $15 million Early

Awareness Information program, through the $30.6 million request for TRIO’s Educational

Opportunity Centers, and through the $2.5 billion request for the Lifetime Learning tax credits that will

help an additional 7.1 million students obtain postsecondary education.

#Adult education an integral part of reformed welfare systems.

– Disseminate information and provide technical assistance to key state and local adult education

contacts on best practices and models for integrating pre-employment and work readiness activities in

basic skills programs

#State and local program management in adult education.

– Create a national performance based reporting system for the adult education delivery system.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 56

Coordination

#Lifetime Learning tax credit. Coordinate with the Department of the Treasury to implement the

Lifetime Learning tax credit.

#School-to-work transition services. The Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) will work with

the Department of Labor and the School-to-Work office to ensure that students with disabilities receive

appropriate school-to-work transition services.

#Work disincentives. RSA will address with the Social Security Administration (SSA) the disincentives

to work that affect SSA beneficiaries.

#Adults with disability in literacy programs. The Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE)

will work with the National Institutes of Health, the National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities

Center, and the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services to develop information

concerning learning accommodation strategies to facilitate the participation of adults with disabilities in

literacy programs.

#National distance learning project in family literacy. OVAE and the Office of Elementary and

Secondary Education will join forces to launch a national distance learning project in family literacy.

#National adult literacy survey. OVAE will partner with the National Center for Education Statistics to

support the development and execution of a second National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS).

Programs supporting this objective

Adult Education

#Adult Education State Grants

#Adult Education Evaluation and Technical

Assistance

#National Institute for Literacy

#Star Schools

#Community-Based Technology Centers

Vocational Rehabilitation

#Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants

#Independent Living

#Projects with Industry

#Supported Employment

Postsecondary Education

#Pell Grants

#Campus-based programs

#Federal Family Education Loans

# Direct Student Loans

#TRIO’s Educational Opportunity Centers

#Learning Anytime Anywhere Partnerships

Selected performance indicators and charts

Objective 3.4 measures lifelong learning with indicators that measure the effects of federally funded

programs and tax credits on encouraging adult literacy and employment. The indicators track how many

people use Lifetime Learning tax credits, the percentage of individuals who receive vocational rehabilitation

services and then obtain and maintain employment, the literacy skills of adult Americans, and the

percentage of students in adult basic education who achieve proficiency in basic skills.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 57

60.4% 60.7% 61.0%

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

50.0%

55.0%

60.0%

65.0%

70.0%

Percent of all Persons Who Obtain an 

Employment Outcome After Receiving 

Vocational Rehabilitation Services

Goal

Figure 34

42% 44%

50%

1995 1996 1999

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

All students

Percent of Adult Education Students 

Enrolled in Beginning Adult Basic Education or 

Beginning English as a Second Language Instruction

Goal

Figure 35

In vocational rehabilitation, the percentage of all persons who obtain employment after receiving

vocational rehabilitation services will increase each year. (Goal 3, indicator 20)

Indicator background and context.

Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) state grants

provide services to help persons with

disabilities prepare for and engage in

employment to the extent of their capabilities.

The program includes services such as

vocational evaluation, counseling, mental and

physical restoration, education, vocational

training, work adjustment, job placement, and

post employment services. Priority is given to

serving individuals with the most severe

disabilities. In recent years, the percent-age of

individuals with severe disabilities as a

proportion of all individuals achieving an

employment outcome has risen; the cost of

rehabilitating individuals with severe

disabilities has been consistently higher than

for individuals with non-severe disabilities. As a group, persons who achieve employment as a result of VR

services show gains in their ability to function in economic terms. Data source. Annual RSA state data. 

By fall 1999, adults at the lowest levels of literacy (those in beginning ABE and Beginning ESOL) will

comprise 45-50% of the total national enrollment. (Adult Education State Grants program plan, indicator

3.1)

Indicator background and context. The Adult

Education Act emphasizes serving the most

educationally disadvantaged adults, those who

demonstrate basic skills at or below the 5th

grade level or who are enrolled in the lowest

level of an adult education program. For

example, in making subgrants, states are to

consider the applicant’s past effectiveness in

and commitment to serving individuals most in

need of literacy services. The indicator

highlighted here underscores the importance of

targeting services to an increasing percentage

of educationally disadvantaged learners in the

adult education system, despite any difficulties

and the time needed to achieve outcomes for

this population as opposed to adults with less

need for basic education. Data source. Adult Education Management Information System. 

Verification/validation of performance measures: Ongoing evaluations of Adult ESL and ABE

providers, and of consumers receiving services from state Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, will provide

independent information regarding program outcomes. Routine monitoring and on-site reviews of

Vocational Rehabilitation and Adult Education programs will specifically address State procedures to

verify grantee reports. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 58

Objective 4.1. Our customers receive fast, seamless service

and dissemination of high-quality information and products.

Context: To accomplish its mission of ensuring equal access to information and promoting educational

excellence throughout the Nation, the Department must support the efforts of States, postsecondary

institutions, school districts, schools boards, schools, community and business organizations, principals,

teachers, parents, and students. All of these customers look to the Department for fast, accurate

information and assistance to meet their various education needs.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Establish and use customer service standards to drive performance.

– Develop a detailed plan to ensure that the Department’s employees and managers are aware of, and

strive to exceed, customer service standards for core products and services.

– Ensure that contracts reflect the Department’s customer service standards, as appropriate.

#Improve ease of access for customers. 

– Establish a one-stop shop for publications, “One-Pubs,” to disseminate ED information products,

including such items as publications and grant applications, and to also operate as a customer call

center. In FY 1999, $6.4 million is requested to continue implementation of this center, which will be

evaluated periodically. 

– Implement the "one right referral" customer service standard for telephone inquiries through

enhancement of information tools and employee training.

– Use customer feedback and other tools and information to improve the quality and timeliness of service

provided at our largest volume toll free numbers: the 1-800-USA LEARN, 1-800-4FED-AID, and the

National Library of Education, 1-800-424-1616, and other significant 800 centers.

– Improve the ease of access, quality, usefulness, and timeliness of information provided by the

Department’s award-winning web page. The 1999 budget request includes $150,000 for this activity

for improvements which will make new information available to customers sooner.

#Ensure access to customers with disabilities.

– Continue to implement Section 504 modifications, funded at nearly $600,000 in 1999, to produce ED

documents (e.g., grant applications, financial aid applications, and contracts) in alternative formats

(e.g., braille and audiotape); provide employee training on Section 504 requirements; provide assistive

technology for both ED staff and external customers; and make other accomodations.

– Coordinate with the Government Printing Office and other agencies to plan for products and services in

alternative formats at the development stage.

#Increase customer awareness and use of ED products and services.

– Establish a more proactive approach to increasing awareness by networking and building partnerships

with other agencies and organizations.

– Conduct research of best practices in information dissemination with the private and public sectors to

identify potential models to adopt and customize for use at the Department.

– Continue to publish cutting-edge research-based materials to meet customer needs as demonstrated by

demand and through national recognition awards. The Department plans to spend $500,000 under the

Office of Educational Research and Improvement’s authority to perform these efforts.

#Develop customer feedback systems to increase understanding of customer needs.

– Develop a strategic, reliable, integrated, and objective customer response plan to capture and use

customer feedback on products and services. 

– Build the capacity to better disseminate the results and actions taken in response to customer feedback.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 59

24

77

40

40

46

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Seconds to respond

Standard 

= 45 secs.

1996

1997

1996

1997

1997

Meeting Customer Service Standards:

Response Time of ED's 3 Largest Call Centers

Information 

Resource Center

1-800-USA-LEARN

Student Financial 

Aid Information

1-800-4FED-AID

The National Library 

of Education

1-800-424-1616

Standard

= 30 secs.

Standard 

= 45 secs.

Figure 36

Coordination

#Federal Publisher’s Committee. Work continues with the Federal Publisher’s Committee, a crossagency group, and the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) to discuss issues of

common interest (e.g., effective marketing, uses of desktop publishing, Government Printing Office

services).

#Government Printing Office’s (GPO) Depository Library System. Continue work with this library

system to ensure all documents printed by GPO are deposited, putting ED documents in the public

domain for use by all taxpayers and citizens.

#General Services Administration’s Consumer Information Center (CIC). Currently working with the

CIC to develop, promote, and distribute information to the public.

Selected performance indicators and charts

One of the most important aspects of this objective and the initiatives outlined is the need for customer

service to be integrated not only into our most popular and used services, but throughout the Department.

In order for the Department to incorporate concepts and best practices related to customer focus into daily

operations, we are developing cross-cutting approaches for meeting this objective. The indicators in this

objective seek to track performance on meeting the Department’s customer service standards and in

providing quality products and services to the public that are timely and accessible.

Department employees and front-line service centers will meet or exceed the Department’s customer

service standards by 2000.

(Goal 4, indicator 2)

Indicator background and

context. The 1996 employee

survey showed that 63.2% of

employees agreed that their

organizations were meeting

customer needs, a 37.4%

improvement from the 1993

survey. To ED’s credit, some of

our highest volume toll-free

numbers, like 1-800-4-FEDAID, have been a model for

providing a consistent level of

reliable, high-quality telephone

service to ED customers each

day. Plans being developed for

the next year will be structured

to increase customer service at

all levels of the organization.

Data source. Information Resource Center (IRC), Student Financial Aid System (1-800-4-FED-AID),

National Library of Education (NLE) data systems.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 60

260,000

636,000

1,060,000

1,500,000

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

ED Internet Home Page:

Total Number of "Hits" by Year

Number

Figure 37

1,120,348

1,474,156

1,335,979

176,989 217,771 277,708

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

Number of calls 

per year

1-800-4FED-AID

1-800-USA-LEARN

Major Call Centers: 

Total Calls Received in 1997

1-800-USA-LEARN=

Information 

Resource Center

1-800-4FED-AID=

Student Financial 

Aid Information

Figure 38

By 2001, at least 90% of customers, internal and external, will agree that ED products, services, and

information, including those on the Department’s web site, are of high quality, timely, and accessible.

(Goal 4, indicator 1)

Indicator background and context. While

a more strategic approach is needed for

assessing customer satisfaction with all ED

products and services, there are pockets of

qualitative measures available. For instance,

in the January 1997 ED Internet online

customer survey, 87% of respondents were

satisfied or very satisfied with the ED

Online Library and EDInfo. The best

measures currently in place are for volume.

For example, the number of customers

calling ED’s main information line, 1-800-

USA-LEARN, has increased over 55%

since 1995. That center received over

277,000 calls last year. Our student financial

aid number, 1-800-4FED-AID, received over

1.3 million calls last year. The number of

people accessing the ED web site increased a

significant 480% since 1994.

Data source. Information Resource Center

data systems; National Library of Education

data systems.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Many Department’s call centers measure progress in

meeting customer service standards, including call waiting time. The planned “one-pubs” operation will

yield information about response time and comment cards will collect customer service data. Independent

customer surveys conducted by the Department’s Planning and Evaluation Service will validate customer

information.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 61

Objective 4.2. Our partners have the support and flexibility

they need without diminishing accountability for results.

Context: When the Nation’s governors, including then-governor Bill Clinton, met at the 1989 Education

Summit at Charlottesville, Virginia, a top priority was to secure greater flexibility in the administration of

federal education programs in exchange for greater accountability for improved student achievement. Under

President Clinton, the Department has worked hard to remove statutory and regulatory impediments to

innovative education reforms, while continuing to ensure protection of basic civil rights and the proper

expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Technical assistance system. Create a strategic framework that identifies roles of technical assistance

providers and coordination across technical assistance centers, conferences, integrated reviews, online

services, and other activities. 

#Regulatory/legislative reinvention.

– In implementing the Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments of 1997, promote efficient

implementation, provide greater flexibility for grantees, and eliminate a substantial number of

discretionary grant program regulations. 

– Simplify legislation during reauthorization while designing programs to be more results-oriented.

– Redesign regulations covering postsecondary student aid and higher education programs following the

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act. 

– Continue to eliminate and simplify other regulations. 

#Program streamlining and flexibility. 

– Use the Department's waiver authorities to provide flexibility in cases where federal requirements may

interfere with plans for improving teaching and learning.

– Support ED-FLEX states as they implement their delegated authority to waive federal requirements. 

– Encourage consolidated planning at the state and local level.

#Comprehensive Regional Assistance Centers. Through the 15 Comprehensive Regional Assistance

Centers, increase significantly the amount of technical assistance aimed at integrating the various

Elementary and Secondary Education Act programs in support of state and local education reforms. 

#Improved audit resolution. Expand to 25 states in FY 1999 the Cooperative Audit Resolution and

Oversight Initiative (CAROI), a federal-state partnership that aims to improve education programs and

student performance at the state and local levels through better use of audits, program monitoring, and

technical assistance.

#Integrated program reviews. In collaboration with the states, continue joint technical assistance and

monitoring activities for elementary and secondary education programs which target the same or greatly

overlapping populations to encourage greater coordination in the planning and delivery of services.

Coordinate with the Council of Chief State School Officers to develop procedures for consolidated

performance reporting.

#Civil rights partnerships. Establish constructive and collaborative relationships with state and local

education agencies, parents and community groups, and other stakeholders to achieve the shared

objectives of civil rights compliance and securing timely improvements for students.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 62

51%

40%

45%

40%

50%

31%

12%

19%

13%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

School District Understanding

In Areas of Flexibility: 1996 Baseline

Schoolwide

programs

Waivers Consolidated

planning

Consolidation of

administrative

funds

Shift in 

accountability 

to student

performance

Percent reporting 

"reasonable" 

understanding

Percent reporting "full" 

understanding

Figure 40

10

25

1997 1999

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

States Assisted Under the Cooperative Audit 

Resolution and Oversight Initiative (CAROI) Number of states

Figure 39

Selected performance indicators and charts

The number of states participating in the Cooperative Audit Resolution and Oversight Initiative

(CAROI) will increase from 10 to 25. (Goal 4, indicator 9)

Indicator background and context. The CAROI

process links program, finance, auditing, and legal

staffs at the federal and state levels to foster better use

of auditing, monitoring, and technical assistance. 

Data source. U.S. Department of Education

administrative records.

Customers will increasingly report that they have

greater flexibility and better understanding of rules and requirements of education programs. (Goal 4,

indicator 6)

Indicator background

and context. In order to

use the flexibility now

available in federal

education programs,

educators must first

understand this flexibility

and the options it

provides.

Data source. “Reports on

Reform from the Field:

District and State Survey

Results, Final Report.”

The Urban Institute,

1997.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Program monitoring activities will explicitly address

coordination and flexibility issues and will be independently verified by program evaluations at State,

district, school and institutional levels conducted through the Planning and Evaluation Service.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 63

Objective 4.3. An up-to-date knowledge base is available from

education research to support education reform and equity.

Context: To help all children reach high academic standards and prepare for postsecondary education,

productive careers, and lifelong learning, the education community needs up-to-date and effective researchbased information on well-tested models, products, and strategies for improving educational achievement at

all levels.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Financial support for R&D.

– Use the $53.7 million requested for the Department’s five National Education Research Institutes to

carry out research and development aimed at expanding knowledge and understanding of education and

the improvement of education policy and practice.

– Support a new Interagency Research Initiative with a $50 million request, in partnership with the

National Science Foundation, that will be designed to improve dramatically the acquisition of reading

and mathematics skills at the K-9 levels. Possible topics include preschool cognitive and language

development, sustaining early math and reading skills through the elementary school years, and

facilitating the transition from mastery of basic skills to critical, abstract thinking.

– Ensure that Department-supported research and development activities meet professional standards by

widely promulgating standards and operationalizing them in grant-making, monitoring, and through the

peer review process.

#Dissemination and use.

– Improve the availability of education data and research findings through better identification of

promising practices and greater use of electronic means to disseminate those practices.

– Establish expert peer panels to designate exemplary or promising educational programs, including

educational policies, research findings, practices and products, in such areas as math and science, safe

and drug-free schools, educational technology and reading.

– Promote widespread access to sound, well-tested educational knowledge and best practices, and

disseminate effective educational policies, programs, practices, and research findings in ways that

support state and local school improvement efforts. Prepare and widely distribute a guide to

comprehensive school reform models to enable districts and schools to match research-based strategies

to their own needs and circumstances.

#Statistics. Increase the use of Department-wide data and statistics on critical education issues for policy

development and program improvement by coordinating data collections across general purpose

statistical collections, federal program evaluations, and program performance reporting.

Coordination

# National Science Foundation, National Institute on Child and Human Development. Develop

collaborative priorities for education research in areas of national need.

#Health and Human Services, Defense, Justice, Department of Labor, National Science Foundation.

Support the Early Childhood Research Working Group in coordinating research priorities and databases. 

# Health and Human Services, Agriculture. Implement an early childhood longitudinal study.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 64

Programs supporting this objective

Programs

ResearchDevelopmentPilot testing/Demonstrations Dissemination

Technicalassistance

Training

Cross-cutting

National Education Research Institutes X X X

Interagency Education Research Initiative X X

Regional Educational Laboratories X X X X X X

Statistics and Assessment X X

Fund for the Improvement of Education X X X X

Program- or topic-specific: all or mostly K-12

Technology Innovation Challenge Grants X X X

Title I Evaluation X

Safe and Drug-Free Schools National Programs X X X X

Bilingual Education Support Services X X X

IDEA Research and Innovation X X X X

Vocational Education National Programs X X X X X

Eisenhower Professional Development Federal

Activities X X X X X

Javits Gifted & Talented Education X X X X

Program- or topic-specific: postsecondary education and lifelong learning

Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary

Education X X X

Adult Education Evaluation and Technical

Assistance X X X X

National Institute for Literacy X X X

NIDRR (National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitation Research) X X X X X X

Research dissemination

National Dissemination Activities X

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators in the Strategic Plan for Objective 4.3 focus on the extent to which Departmentsupported research, statistics, evaluations, and technical assistance contribute to greater understanding and

utilization of good practice and policies. The extent to which states and local school districts perceive that

information developed by the Department is useful in their efforts to implement standards-based reform is a 

key measure of customer satisfaction and potential for affecting improvement efforts.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 65

52% 50% 54%

42% 38% 41%

26%

11%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percentage of School Districts Reporting Helpfulness of Federal 

Sources of Information in Understanding or Implementing 

Comprehensive Standard-Based Reform

Regional education 

laboratories

Written information ED on-line services

1-800-USA-LEARN

from ED

Other contacts with 

ED officials

Federally -supported 

technical assistance 

centers

ED sponsored 

conferences and 

workshops

National model 

content standards

Figure 41

81% 82%

60%

66%

74%

54%

41%

61%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Written information 

from ED

Oral information 

from ED

ED sponsored 

conferences/workshops

ED on-line services

1-800-USA-LEARN

National model 

content standards

Regional education 

laboratories

Comprehensive 

regional assistance 

centers

Percentage of State-Level Respondents Reporting Helpfulness of Federal 

Sources of Information in Understanding or Implementing 

Comprehensive Standard-Based Reform

Figure 42

By 1999, increasing numbers of educators, researchers, policy makers, and parents will report that the

Department’s research, development and dissemination, and technical assistance activities contribute

to educational improvement efforts.

Data source for both figures.

“Reports on Reform from the Field:

District and State Survey Results.”

The Urban Institute, Washington,

D.C., 1997.

Verification/validation of performance measures: Peer and customer reviews will provide independent

validation of research utilization. Independent evaluations using peer review will assess the performance of

key providers of research and development. Benchmark studies will compare the Department’s research

and knowledge development activities against the best in the public and nonprofit sector.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 66

Objective 4.4. Our information technology investments are

sound and used to improve impact and efficiency.

Context: The Department must be committed to carrying out the mandates of The Information

Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 (Clinger-Cohen Act). It requires the Department to

significantly improve the acquisition and management of information technology in order to advance

mission performance and service delivery. This includes addressing the need for all major information

systems to become Year 2000 compliant, mission-justification of major information system investments,

network and web support and the reduction of paperwork burden.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Year 2000 compliance.

– To continue to implement a major Department effort to become "Year 2000 data compliant" to ensure

that ED's data users and customers are not affected by data corruption resulting from hardware,

software and devices with embedded technology that cannot correctly process date-related information. 

– The Department is requesting $4 million in FY 1999 to ensure that all computer systems are Year 2000

compliant by March 1999.

#Network and personal computer infrastructure and ED World Wide Web support.

– To ensure that the Department has a cost effective, efficient, accessible and reliable network

infrastructure by continuing to implement a Product Support Plan (PSP) that provides guidance of

standard hardware and software products supported by ED.

– To continue to provide a reliable and secure Internet service by implementing ED’s redesigned web site

that incorporates interactive forms, new products and technologies, and additional customer feedback

opportunities. 

– The request includes $26.3 million to maintain automated data processing systems, including network

operations, and provide the latest technology to increase productivity and to provide improved

customer service.

#Cost-effective major systems that deliver for ED and its customers.

– To assess current and proposed major information systems–such as student financial systems and

financial systems as described in Objectives 3.3 and 4.6.–by the continuation of the work of the

Information Technology Investment Review Board’s systematic and careful review of the acquisition

and implementation of information technology.

– To implement a capital planning and investment control process as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act.

#Data collection.

– To continue to improve data collection by increasing ED's use of information technology tools to help

us better manage the Department’s data collections. This will reduce paperwork burden to the public.

Selected performance indicators and charts

All major information systems needing repair will be converted to Year 2000 compliance on or before

March 1999. (Goal 4, indicator 14)

Indicator background and context. Each federal agency is required by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) to ensure that its information systems are fully compliant well before December 31, 1999.

OMB has provided guidance to assist agencies in planning, managing and evaluating their Year 2000

programs.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 67

Year 2000 Compliance: Stages for Determination

# Assessment: Identify core business areas and processes,

inventory and analyze systems supporting the core

business areas, and prioritize their conversion or

replacement.

# Renovation: Convert, replace or eliminate selected

platforms, applications, databases and utilities.

# Validation: Test the performance, functionality, and

integration of converted or replaced platforms,

applications, databases, utilities and interfaces in an

operational environment.

# Implementation: Implement converted or replaces

platforms, applications, databases, utilities and

interfaces

The Department has established a Year

2000 project team, designated

coordinators in each office, and developed

capacity for technical solutions. The chart

below illustrates the Department's mission

critical systems and their progress to date.

The Department identified 14 mission

critical systems. Of these, five have been

initially assessed to be compliant; two are

being replaced; seven are being repaired. 

Figure 43

Status of U.S. Department of

Education 

Year 2000 Conversions for Major Systems

(Shading = completed)

# 14 Mission Critical System and Year 2000 Compliance

AssessmentRenovation

Validation

ImplementationCompliant

Student financial aid systems

1 Central Processing System (CPS) 1/98 11/98 12/98 1/99

2 Direct Loan Central Database 12/98 3/99 Yes

3 Direct Loan Origination System 6/98 3/99 Yes

4 Direct Loan Servicing System 12/98 3/99 Yes

5 Postsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS) 6/98 3/99 Yes

6 Multiple Data Entry System (MDE) 2/98 11/98 12/98 1/99

7 Title IV Wide Area Network (TIVWAN) 6/98 8/98 Yes

8 Campus-Based System (CBS) 2/97 1/98 6/98 6/98

9 Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFEL) 10/97 9/98 1/99 3/99

10 Pell Recipients and Financial Mgmt System (PELL) 2/97 6/98 9/98 3/99

11 National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS) 11/97 6/98 6/98 3/99

Other Program Systems

12 Impact Aid Payment System N/A N/A 4/98 6/98

ED Administrative Systems

13 ED Central Accounting and Payment System (EDCAPS) N/A N/A 6/98 4/98

14 Local Area Network (LAN) 11/97 9/98 9/98 9/98

Data source. Current inventory systems; monitoring of status, ongoing 1999-2000
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 68

5.3 5.43 5.4

4.9

2.2 2.1

FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Reduction Goal

Actual Reduction

ED Paperwork Burden Reduction

Millions of hours 

Figure 44

The data-reporting burden on the public will be reduced annually. (Goal 4, indicator 17)

Indicator background and context. The

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 set a

10% reduction goal for FY 1996 and FY

1997 and 5% thereafter for federal agencies

to reduce the burden of information

collection on the public. The Department’s

goal was to reduce the paperwork burden

by 5.3 million hours in FY 96, 4.9 million

hours in FY 97, 2.2 million hours in FY 98

and 2.1 million hours in FY 99. Since the

legislation was enacted, the Department has

exceeded its targets. The Department

reduced data-reporting burden by 10%

(5.43 million hours) in FY 1996 and 11.2%

(5.4 million hours) in FY 1997. The

significant reduction can be attributed to the

Department's increased use of information

technology and the successful regulatory

reinvention effort.

Data source. Information collection forms, annual 1997-2002, review of forms, ongoing 1997-2002.

Verification/validation of performance measures: On-going independent evaluations and testing will

monitor progress on Year 2000 compliance. Benchmark evaluations will independently verify the quality of

Department information technology systems in relation to similar systems that are considered the best in

government.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 69

Objective 4.5. The Department’s employees are highly skilled

and high-performing.

Context: To effectively lead educational reform, the Department must provide its workforce with certain

skills and tools, as well as a quality workplace. Prior GAO reports highlighted the need for the Department

to develop strategic management systems, including those for human resources. In addition, recent

employee surveys identified the need for quality, cost-effective learning opportunities, especially for current

and prospective managers, and improving the quality of the work environment. To ensure the continuous

development and high performance of all Department employees, planned activities through 1999 and

beyond focus on addressing these needs and building upon related, recently introduced innovations, such as

the automated, multi-rater (“360") performance appraisal system.

Key strategies for FY 1999

#High staff performance.

– Provide training and development activities focused on improving leadership and management

competencies and addressing critical skills needs, including those related to financial and information

management and the use of technology. Partnership arrangements will be used to bring in specialized

expertise to the Department from recognized experts. $4 million is requested for training and

development services to be made available through the Training and Development Center and through

individual principal offices.

– Benchmark training services with the “best-in-business” in the federal government and private sector. 

– Provide on-line, computer-based training and other innovations to increase access to training

opportunities and address the need for additional training opportunities for regional employees, as

highlighted by the 1996 Employee Survey and feedback from Union officials working in partnership

with the Department.

# A fair, efficient and responsive workplace.

– Assess whether the recently opened Informal Dispute Resolution Center (IDRC) and related efforts

have been successful in helping employees and managers to avoid and/or promptly resolve EEO

complaints or other matters of dispute.

– Encourage resolution of formal complaints at the earliest stage possible by rendering final agency

decisions in-house and thereby minimizing the caseload at EEOC. 

#A healthy, safe, secure and accessible workplace for all employees. 

– Ensure that employees who move back to their newly renovated headquarters facility, as well as those

being relocated in regional offices in Philadelphia, San Francisco and Kansas City, are satisfied with

workplace services, including those related to the actual moves. For 1999, $2.8 million is requested to

support the renovation of Department office space, primarily in the regional offices.

– Ensure that measures of workplace quality, including air and water quality, are consistently high as are

measures of satisfaction with the responsiveness of services requested through the Department’s

customer service center. 

Selected performance indicators and charts

By 2000, 75% of Department managers will agree that staff knowledge and skills are adequate to

carry out the Department’s mission. (Goal 4, indicator 19)
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 70

50.0%

60.0%

28.8%

42.7%

27.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

1993 1996 2000 1996 2000

NA

1996

Goal

Goal

Targets Set to Improve Employee Satisfaction with

Leadership and Management Training

"Yes, the Department 

provides effective 

management training."

"Yes, management in 

my organizational unit 

provides effective 

leadership."

Figure 45

Informal Dispute Resolution (IDR) Center Successful in 

Resolving More Complaints Informally

90%

70%

64%

72%

40%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Employee survey: "I know where 

to go to receive assistance with 

matters concerning discrimination, harassment, or other 

matters pertaining to supervisory/ 

employee relations."

Percentage of employee 

dispute cases closed or 

resolved informally

1996 2000 1993 1996 1997 1999 

Goal

Goal

Figure 46

Indicator background and context. An array

of survey and focus group data and

information from the GAO exists indicating

that agency managers lack confidence that

staff knowledge and skills are adequate to

manage large systems and carry out certain

other core responsibilities. One example

highlighted by the Employee Survey is that the

ability to manage effectively remains a

concern of employees. The 1996 Employee

Survey indicated that 28.8% of employees

agree that the Department delivers effective

managerial training, and 42.7% agree that

management provides effective leadership in

their organizational unit. By the end of 1998,

baseline data will be available on the

proportion of mangers who agree that staff

knowledge and skills are adequate, and an extensive employee survey effort is planned for 2000 to assess

overall progress in meeting performance targets.

Data source. 1993 & 1996 Employee Surveys.

By 2000, most employees and managers will express high satisfaction with assistance on resolving

employee disputes, and disputes will be closed quickly and informally whenever possible. (Goal 4,

indicator 21)

Indicator background and context.

The 1996 Employee Survey indicated

72% of employees know where to go to

receive assistance in resolving

disputes. The Department has targeted

high results in this area, based on the

projection that the marketing and

information efforts of the recently

opened IDRC will have a positive

impact on this measure. Opening of the

IDRC and re-engineering the EEO

office may already have had an impact

on the percentage of disputes being

resolved informally—the 1997 IDRC

report stated 64% of employee disputes

were resolved informally, an increase

from 22% in 1993.

Data source. 1996 Employee Survey,

EEOC 462 Reports, IDRC Reports. 

Verification/validation of performance measures: Employee surveys and evaluations, such as the one

planned for the Informal Dispute Resolution Center, are or will be administered by independent contractors. 

Information systems are used to calculate processing times and so forth for employee complaint processing

and other matters. In addition, other administrative records will be used to determine the quality of

employee responses and services to customers. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 71

1%

50%

Legacy systems EDCAPS

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Percent of ED Personnel Able to Access

the Department's Financial System

Figure 47

Objective 4.6. Management of our programs and services

ensures financial integrity.

Context: The Department must be committed to carrying out the mandates of The Chief Financial

Officers Act of 1990 and the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996. According to these

laws and regulations there must be developed an integrated, sound accounting and financial management

system. A measure of financial integrity is a clean audit opinion on annual financial statements. In addition

to financial management, financial integrity requires an effective contracts and purchasing system to

support mission critical departmental and program office objectives. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Centralized core data.

– Provide timely and reliable information to program and support offices to help them manage their

responsibilities by completing the implementation of a new central automated processing system—

Education Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS).

– Continue to provide training of staff in core financial management competencies. 

– Improve recipients accountability and reporting through the use of EDCAPS.

– The $7.3 million request for the new Education Department Central Automated Processing System

(EDCAPS) will support installation and integration of final system components, training of Department

staff and enhancements to the basic structure of the system.

#Financial integrity.

– Improve Loan Loss Estimates

– Reduce the number of material weaknesses and material non-conformances to zero

#Performance-based contracting.

– Control costs by implementing performance-based contracting and by repatriating work contracted out

when effective and possible within staff ceilings.

– Review every contract for the maximum use of effective performance objectives and measures to assess

the value provided.

– Continue to provide training to all ED procurement and technical personnel in their capability to

productively manage the performance of contractors.

Selected performance indicators and charts

By 2000, the Education Central Automated Processing System (EDCAPS) will be fully implemented

and providing assistant secretaries, the Chief Financial and Chief Information Officer, and program

managers with consistent, timely and reliable financial and program information. This result will be

assessed by the Information Technology Investment Review

Board. (Goal 4, indicator 24)

Indicator background and context. EDCAPS will be the

core financial system for ED and will be used by both

Department personnel as well as the recipient community

(grantees and contractors). The number of Department

personnel using EDCAPS will increase due to its timely and

readily accessible data, thus enhancing the financial

management of programs.

EDCAPS enables recipients to draw down funds through the

Internet, thereby reducing the Department’s dependency on

contractors to provide this service.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 72

Number of Material Weaknesses

and Material Non-Conformances

Still pending, 

as of 12/31/97

Goal for 1999

7

0

Figure 48

Improvements in Contract Performance

(Sample Representation Pending Actual Statistics)

FY 1997 (Baseline) FY 1998 FY 1999

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Improvement in Lead Yime to Award

Improvement in On Time Delivery

Increase in Contract $'s Based on Performance

Objectives

Improved Cost to Complete Over Initial Estimate

Improvement in Contractor Past Performance Ratings

% Improvements in 

Figure 49

Recipients are also able to report their expenditures electronically, eliminating the current paper-based

process. Data source. EDCAPS users; GAPS Web site user activity listing.

Auditors will issue a clean opinion on the Department-wide annual financial statements every year.

(Goal 4, indicator 26)

Indicator background and context. By fiscal 1999 intends that

the number of material weaknesses and material nonconformances will be reduced to zero, loan loss estimates are

accepted by auditors and the Department will receive a clean

opinion on its financial statements. This will signal that effective

that effective financial management has been fully implemented. 

Data source. Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act Report.

Evaluation of contracts will indicate that better than fully successful performance, including quality,

cost control, timeliness, and other factors, is being received by the government and the taxpayer. (Goal

4, indicator 25)

Indicator background and

context. A contract’s terms

and conditions are a

representation of the

government’s expectations for

how the government’s

particular needs are to be

fulfilled. There are numerous

indicators that provide

analytical data to determine the

value of the work which is done

for the agency. The value is

determined by a variety of

factors, but there are a few

which universally are key: (1)

timeliness in the award of a

contract; (2) continual efforts

at cost containment and

reduction; and (3) the best

quality solution. Data source.

U.S. Department of Education

Contract Data.

Verification/validation of performance measures: The indicator of a “clean audit opinion” will be

obtained from an independent audit, as required by statute. The Inspector General participates in the

conduct of the audit and the reporting/tracking of material weaknesses. Administrative reports prepared by

project monitors on contractor performance will be externally evaluated by random sampling and external

review of contracts. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 73

Objective 4.7. All levels of the agency are fully performancedriven.

Context: The Government Performance and Results Act “the Results Act” (GPRA) provides the

Department with strong support and guidance for new ways of operating and improving our programs. Its

focus on results affects all aspects of an organization and its operations—drafting legislation and

regulations, ensuring program quality and financial integrity, conducting employee appraisals and

assessment, and measuring program performance and more. 

Key strategies for FY 1999

#Sound implementation of the Strategic Plan. Building on the Department’s well-received Strategic

Plan, extensive steps are being taken to ensure effective implementation of the plan by:

– Effectively communicate the Strategic Plan to employees by such means as highlighting success stories,

training, and recognizing employees for good work implementing the plan.

– Track performance through quarterly reporting that assesses progress against each objective and

provides feedback for continuous improvement.

– Align performance appraisals for assistant secretaries and senior managers with the achievement of

Strategic Plan objectives.

– Promote an analytic agenda that includes benchmarking studies to identify best public and private

sector practices and strengthen the underlying knowledge base for achieving Strategic Plan objectives.

– Conduct independent evaluations of the usefulness of the Strategic plan for decision making and

continuous improvement.

# Strong budget support for planning and performance measurement. The structure of the

Department’s 1999 budget request reflects the Strategic Plan and includes funding for evaluations,

performance measurement, statistics and assessments required by GPRA. 

– Performance reporting linked to budget and strategic plan to make the Strategic Plan a useful

management tool.

– Resource allocations are aligned with agency priorities and performance, including support in the

budget for evaluations, performance measurement, statistics and assessments.

– Training funds support development of skills in Department employees for implementation of plans and

performance measurement.

# Ensuring assessment of the quality of data systems. The quality of a performance measurement

process is no better than the quality of the data collected. (For more detail, see Section 3. Quality of

Performance Data.)

– The Department will support self assessments and evaluations of indicator systems for both the

Department’s Strategic Plan and the individual program plans.

– Develop guidance for ED managers on developing and monitoring quality data systems, and the use of

data to manage program performance.

– The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will assess and evaluate the information systems for selected

program areas that are critical for obtaining the data needed to meet GPRA requirements.

# Effective collaboration with partners in performance measurement and data systems. In the

federal education system the success of a strategic plan depends on the success of its partnerships. 

– Partner collaboration on implementing the plan is continually expanded and strengthened. 

– State/local grantees are provided models and best practices for performance monitoring and analyses. 

– Communicate the Strategic Plan externally with partners though meetings, presentations at major

conferences, organization newsletters and the Internet.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 74

60%

75%

88%

1993 1996 2000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Understanding of Strategic Plan 

Goals and Objectives

(Percent of employees that report having a clear

understanding of how the goals and strategies of

their office support the mission of the Department.)

Goal

Figure 50

Programs that have evaluation set-asides supporting this objective or

authorized to fund evaluations

#Title I Evaluation

#Magnet Schools Program

#Charter Schools Program

#TRIO Program

#Vocational Education National Programs

#IDEA National Activities

#Adult Education Evaluation and Technical

Assistance

Selected performance indicators and charts

Performance indicators in Objective 4.7 identify the extent to which sound performance data are effectively

used throughout the agency. These indicators address employee understanding of their contribution to the

ED’s goals and objective, the existence of adequate performance measurement systems, manager’s use of

performance data for improvement, and evidence that policy, budget and resource allocation decisions are

aligned with ED’s strategic priorities. 

Employees will recognize the Strategic Plan as meaningful and understand how their work supports

achieving the plan’s goals and objectives. (Goal 4, indicator 27)

Indicator background and context.

Critical to agency performance on this

objective is the extent to which

employees understand and support and

actively work toward achieving the

agencies goals and objective. From

1993 to 1996 there has been a 15%

increase in reported employee

understanding of how the goals and

strategies support the mission of the

Department. In part this increase may

have been due to the development and

release of the Department’s first

Strategic Plan in 1994. Distribution of

the Department’s 1998-2002 Strategic

Plan kicked off implementation efforts

that for the 4 year period from 1996 to

2000 should produce at least a similar

15% increase. 

Data source. U.S. Department of Education Employee Survey, 1993, 1996.

Verification/validation of performance measures: The Inspector General will provide an independent

assessment of the reliability and validity of program performance information. Use and impact of the

Education Department’s Strategic Plan and the effectiveness of planning operations will be validated

through an independent panel composed of noted experts in the planning, evaluation and education field.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 75

Use of tax expenditures 

In addition to the many programs that ED administers, tax expenditures targeted for educational benefits

also significantly support the objectives of the ED Strategic Plan in 1999. While they are under the

jurisdiction of the Department of the Treasury, the postsecondary education tax credits and deductions

authorized by the Balanced Budget and Taxpayer Relief Acts of 1997 and the proposed School

Modernization Bonds support several Department of Education objectives.

Elementary and secondary schools 

This proposed interest-free bond program would support Objective 1.3: Schools are strong, safe,

disciplined, and drug-free.

#School Modernization Bonds (for school construction). States, territories, and school

districts—especially those serving large numbers of low-income children—will be eligible for $9.7 billion

in 1999 in zero-interest bonds to support the construction and renovation of public school facilities. 

Postsecondary education

All of the following tax credits, deductions, and forgiveness provisions were recently authorized by the

Balanced Budget Act of 1997 or the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. All support Objective 3.2:

Postsecondary students receive the financial aid and support services they need to enroll in and complete

their educational program. The Lifelong Leaning tax credit and employer-provided higher education

assistance tax deduction also support Objective 3.4: Adults can strengthen their skills and improve their

earning power over their lifetime through lifelong learning.

Expanded opportunities to save for college

# New Education IRAs and use of regular IRAs for education expenses. Parents and grandparents

can now create education IRAs and make penalty-free withdrawals from other IRAs. 

– Beginning January 1, 1998, taxpayers may withdraw funds from an IRA, without penalty, for their

own higher education expenses or those of their spouse, child, or even grandchild. 

– In addition, for each child under age 18, families may deposit $500 per year into an Education IRA

in the child's name. Earnings in the Education IRA will accumulate tax-free and no taxes will be due

upon withdrawal if the money is used to pay for post-secondary tuition and required fees (less grants,

scholarships, and other tax-free educational assistance), books, equipment, and eligible room and

board expenses. Once the child reaches age 30, his or her Education IRA must be closed or

transferred to a younger member of the family. 

#Support for State-sponsored pre-paid tuition plans. In order to provide greater flexibility for

families saving in qualified State tuition plans, when a family uses a qualified State-sponsored tuition

plan to save for college, no tax is due in connection with the plan until the time of withdrawal. Further,

families may use these plans to save not only for tuition but also for certain room and board expenses

for students who attend on at least a half-time basis. These benefits are available on January 1, 1998. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 76

Help for postsecondary students

# HOPE Scholarship. The "HOPE Scholarship" tax credit helps make the first two years of college or

vocational school universally available. These non-refundable tax credits will reimburse families for up

to $1,500 for each of the first two years of postsecondary education. An estimated 5.5 million students

will receive $4.2 billion in HOPE tax credits in 1999. 

Students will receive a 100% tax credit for the first $1,000 of tuition and required fees and a 50%

credit on the second $1,000. This credit is available for tuition and required fees less grants,

scholarships, and other tax-free educational assistance and will be available for payments made after

December 31, 1997, for college enrollment after that date. A high school senior going into his or her

freshman year of college in September 1998, for example, could be eligible for as much as a $1,500

HOPE tax credit. 

The credit can be claimed in two years for students who are in their first two years of college or

vocational school and who are enrolled on at least a half-time basis in a degree or certificate program

for any portion of the year. The taxpayer can claim a credit for his own tuition expense or for the

expenses of his or her spouse or dependent children. 

#Lifetime Learning tax credit. Lifetime Learning credits make will postsecondary education more

affordable for students beyond their first two years of study, as well as for those taking class part-time

to upgrade their job skills. This tax credit is targeted to adults who want to go back to school, change

careers, or take a course or two to upgrade their skills and to college juniors, seniors, graduate and

professional degree students. It offers a 20-percent non-refundable tax credit for the first $5,000 of

tuition and fees each year through 2002 and a 20-percent non-refundable tax credit for the first

$10,000 thereafter. An estimated 7.2 million students will receive $2.5 billion in Lifelong Learning tax

credits in 1999. 

#Tax deduction for employer-provided higher education benefits. For adults going to school while

they work, the new tax law extends Section 127 of the tax code for three years. Section 127 allows

workers to exclude up to $5,250 of employer-provided education benefits from their income. The

assistance must be for undergraduate courses beginning prior to June 1, 2000. This provision will

enable many Americans to pursue their goals of lifelong learning. 

Tax relief for borrowers repaying loans

#Easier student loan repayment. For many college graduates, one of their first financial obligations is

to repay their student loans, which average about $13,500 per student. The new student loan interest

deduction will reduce the burden of the repayment obligation by allowing students or their families to

take a tax deduction for interest paid in the first 60 months of repayment on student loans. The

deduction is available even if an individual does not itemize other deductions. The maximum deduction

is $1,000 in 1998, $1,500 in 1999, $2,000 in 2000, and $2,500 in 2001 and beyond. 

# Community service loan forgiveness. This provision excludes from income the student loan amounts

forgiven by non-profit, tax-exempt charitable or educational institutions for borrowers who take

community-service jobs that address unmet community needs. For example, a recent graduate who

takes a low-paying job in a rural school will not owe any additional income tax if in recognition of this

service his or her college or another charity forgives a loan it made to the student to help pay college

costs. This provision applies to loans forgiven after August 5, 1997. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 77

Funding and staffing by objective

The following table shows the Department’s initial estimated distribution of its funding and staffing by

Strategic Plan objective. The Department does not have an accounting system that fully supports this

breakout. Accordingly, where funds were split between objectives, estimates took into account knowledge

about program components or evaluation study findings. 

Exhibit 3

Distribution of FY 1999 Funding and Staffing by Objective

Program ($

in millions)

S&E Funding

($ in 000s)

Staffing

(FTE)

Total—unduplicated $36,742.1 $958.2 4,623

Goal 1: Help all students reach standards. $6,400.0 $45.2 332

Objective 1.1. States develop and implement standards. $291.5 $4.3 32

Objective 1.2. School to work $1,760.0 $13.1 96

Objective 1.3. Strong, safe, drug-free schools $1,892.0 $8.9 66

Objective 1.4. Talented and dedicated teachers $807.6 $5.1 38

Objective 1.5. Families and communities $361.3 $3.0 22

Objective 1.6. Public school choice $251.0 $3.8 28

Objective 1.7. Education technology $1,021.0 $6.9 51

Goal 2: A solid foundation for all children $13,775.1 $42.0 309

Objective 2.1. All children ready to learn $1,906.6 $2.9 22

Objective 2.2. All children able to read by 3rd grade $5,894.2 $13.7 101

Objective 2.3. All 8th graders master math $3,361.3 $10.3 76

Objective 2.4. Special populations help $2,613.0 $15.1 111

Goal 3: Postsecondary education and lifelong learning $15,812.9 $621.6 1,922

Objective 3.1. Secondary students–information & support $5,122.0 $3.4 25

Objective 3.2. Postsecondary students–financial aid & support $10,712.4 $184.6 1,358

Objective 3.3. Postsecondary aid system $389.3 213

Objective 3.4. Lifelong learning $4,588.3 $44.3 326

Goal 4: ED a high-performance organization $540.6 $180.5 1,328

Objective 4.1. Customer service $26.4 194

Objective 4.2. Support for ED partners $65.0 $11.6 85

Objective 4.3. Research and development $475.6 $59.1 435

Objective 4.4. Information technology $9.9 73

Objective 4.5. ED workforce/operational support $23.3 172

Objective 4.6. Financial integrity $44.6 328

Objective 4.7. Performance management $5.5 41

Civil Rights $79.3 $69.0 731

Duplicated Objectives

Objective 1.4 Talented and dedicated teachers $1,558.5 $9.1 67

Objective 2.4 Special populations help $13,642.8 $49.0 361
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 78

Constructing this table for postsecondary education and lifelong learning was relatively easy. Many K-12

programs have multiple purposes and functions and did not fit as easily into one or two objectives.

Two objectives were particularly cross-cutting, such that major programs could count as meeting them plus

at least one other. These were the professional development objective (Objective 1.4) and support for K-12

special populations (Objective 2.4). For example, Title I is totally aimed at improving education for special

populations, but, at the same time, it provides billions of dollars for reading and math instruction and thus

is the major source of support for Objectives 2.2 and 2.3 (the reading and math objectives).

The funds shown in the unduplicated part of the table for Objective 1.4 and 2.4 include programs or parts

of programs which had little or no overlap with other objectives. We also calculated duplicated totals for

theses two objectives (shown at the bottom of the table) in which were counted all or part of programs that

supported professional development or special populations, regardless of whether the program also

supported other objectives. As can be seen, a substantial portion of the Department’s K-12 funding goes for

special populations ($13.6 billion out of the $20.2 billion for Goals 1 and 2.).
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 79

Relationship of program goals to Strategic Plan

goals and objectives

The Department is committed to being held accountable for measuring and reporting results on our goals

and objectives. Like the strategic plan, the individual program performance plans lay out goals objectives,

performance indicators and targets, data sources, and key strategies for all programs in the Department. 

They are directly linked to the Department’s budget for each program area. In some cases, several budget

line items have been aggregated into a single performance plan. The individual programs are separately

identifiable, however, with at least one objective specified for each.

The following table links the Department’s programs to the objectives in the strategic plan. It is intended to

show where programs have a significant amount of activities or products supporting an objective.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 80

FY 1999 Request ($000s)

$501,000$125,000$10,000$34,000$7,000$2,000$87,000$581,000

$7,767,000

$114,992$354,689$40,311$150,000$35,000$15,000$696,000

$1,100,000

$335,000

$0

$556,000$13,00010,500$101,000$30,000$3,000$8,300

$0

Relationship of Department of

Education Programs to Strategic

Plan Objectives

Goals 2000 grants to statesSchool-to-work opportunitiesRegional technology in educationStar schoolsReady to learn televisionTelecommunications mathNational activitiesTechnology challenge (funds and grants)Title I grants to local ed. agenciesEven StartTitle I migrant education Title I neglected and delinquentComprehensive school reform demonstrationsTransition-to-school demonstrationsMigrant education (HEP and CAMP)Impact AidClass size reduction/teacher fin. initiativeEisenhower prof. dev. state grantsInnovative strategies state grants (Chap. VI)Safe and drug-free schoolsInexpensive book distributionArts in educationMagnet schools assistanceEd. for homeless children and youthWomen's educational equityTraining and advisory services (CRA-IV)Ellender fellowships

Goal 1: K-12 education system

1.1 States develop and implement standards X X X X

1.2 School to work X

1.3 Strong, safe and drug-free schools X X

1.4 Talented and dedicated teachers X X X X X X X X

1.5 Families and communities X X X X X

1.6 Public school choice X

1.7 Technology X X X X X X X

Goal 2: A solid foundation for all students

2.1 All children ready to learn X X X X X X X

2.2 Third grade reading X X X X X X X X X X

2.3 Eighth grade math X X X X X X X X

2.4 Special populations help X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Goal 3: Postsecondary education and lifelong learning

3.1 Secondary students--information & support X

3.2 Postsecondary students--fin. aid & support X

3.4 Lifelong learning X

Goal 4: High-performance organization

4.2 Flexibility with accountability X X

4.3 Research, evaluation and improvement X X X X

Civil rights, direct support X X
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 81

FY 1999 Request ($000s)

$18,000$8,000$100,000$40,000$200,000$260,000$66,000$232,000$5,000$150,000

$3,810,700

$373,985$370,000$45,000$64,508$44,556$82,139$20,535$34,023

$2,325,280

$17,283$10,928$33,685$18,942$2,350$2,596$9,894

Relationship of Department of

Education Programs to Strategic

Plan Objectives

Education for Native Hawaiians

Alaska Native Education equity

Charter schools

Comp. regional assistance centers

Education opportunity zones (prop.leg.)America Reads Challenge (prop.leg)Indian educationBilingual education

Foreign language assistance

Immigrant educationIDEA special ed. state grants (Part B)

IDEA preschool grants (Part B)IDEA infants and families (Part C)

IDEA State Improvement

IDEA Research and innovationIDEA tech. assist. & dissem.IDEA personnel preparationIDEA parent information centersIDEA technology and media servicesVocational rehab. (VR) state grantsRA grants for IndiansRA client assistance State grants

RA trainingRA special demostration programs

RA migratory workers

RA recreational programsRA protect./advoc. indiv. rights

Goal 1: K-12 education system

1.1 States develop and implement standards X X X X X

1.2 School to work X X X X

1.3 Strong, safe and drug-free schools X X

1.4 Talented and dedicated teachers X X X X X X X X X X

1.5 Families and communities X X X X X X

1.6 Public school choice X X X

1.7 Technology X X

Goal 2: A solid foundation for all students

2.1 All children ready to learn X X X X X X X X X

2.2 Third grade reading X X X X X X X X

2.3 Eighth grade math X X X X X X X

2.4 Special populations help X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Goal 3: Postsecondary education and lifelong learning

3.1 Secondary students--information & support X X X

3.2 Postsecondary students--fin. aid & support X

3.4 Lifelong learning X X X X X X

Goal 4: High-performance organization

4.2 Flexibility with accountability X

4.3 Research, evaluation and improvement X X

Civil rights, direct support X X X X
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 82

FY 1999 Request ($000s)

$22,071$22,296$1,900$1,587$8,176$81,000$30,000$8,256$44,791$83,480

$1,010,522

$13,497

$0

$388,000$6,000

$0$7,594,000$1,649,000$0$1,764,317

$525,484$260,000$22,500$61,117

$0

$67,000$13,000

Relationship of Department of

Education Programs to Strategic

Plan Objectives

RA projects with industryRA independent livingRA program improvementRA evaluationHelen Keller National CenterNIDRRAssistive technologyAmerican Printing House for the BlindNatl. Institute for DeafGallaudet UniversityVocational education State grantsVocational education natl. programsTribally control, postsec. voc. instit.Adult ed. (grants, eval., tech. assist.)National Institute for LiteracyLiteracy programs for prisonersPell grantsCampus-based programsState students incentive grantsFederal Family Education LoansDirect Students LoansAid for institutional developmentFund for Improvement of Postsec. Ed.Int. ed. & foreign lang. studiesUrban community serviceTeacher recruitment/preparation - Title VInterest Subsidy grants

Goal 1: K-12 education system

1.1 States develop and implement standards X

1.2 School to work X X X

1.3 Strong, safe and drug-free schools

1.4 Talented and dedicated teachers X X

1.5 Families and communities X X

1.6 Public school choice

1.7 Technology X X X

Goal 2: A solid foundation for all students

2.1 All children ready to learn X X

2.2 Third grade reading X X X

2.3 Eighth grade math X X

2.4 Special populations help X X X X X X X

Goal 3: Postsecondary education and lifelong learning

3.1 Secondary students--information & support X X X

3.2 Postsecondary students--fin. aid & support X X X X X X X X X X X X

3.4 Lifelong learning X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Goal 4: High-performance organization

4.2 Flexibility with accountability

4.3 Research, evaluation and improvement X X X X X X X

Civil rights, direct support X
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 83

FY 1999 Request ($000s)

$583,000$0$0$39,288$0$0$37,500$15,000$30,000$20,000$210,000$50,000$53,782$56,000$18,785$104,000$50,000$105,000$6,500$25,000$160,000$140,000$5,000$6,300$5,000$68,000

Relationship of Department of

Education Programs to Strategic

Plan Objectives

TRIO programsNatl. early intervention scholarshipsState grants for incarcerated youth offendersByrd honors scholarshipsGeorge Bush fellowshipsJavits fellowshipsNational need grad. fellowshipsEarly awareness information programLearning anytime anywhere partnershipsAccess and retention innovationsHoward UniversityInteragency research initiativesNational education research institutesRegional educational laboratoriesNational dissemination activitiesStatistics and assessmentEisenhower prof. dev. federalFunds for Improvement of EducationJavits gifted and talented educationEisenhower reg. math/sci/consortiaLearning centersHigh Hopes College-School PartnershipsNational writing projectCivic educationInternatl. ed. exchange (Goals 2000)Office for Civil Rights

Goal 1: K-12 education system

1.1 States develop and implement standards X X X X X X X

1.2 School to work X X X X

1.3 Strong, safe and drug-free schools X X X

1.4 Talented and dedicated teachers X X X X X X X

1.5 Families and communities X X X X X

1.6 Public school choice X X

1.7 Technology X X X X X X

Goal 2: A solid foundation for all students

2.1 All children ready to learn X X X X X X

2.2 Third grade reading X X X X X X X X X

2.3 Eighth grade math X X X X X X X X X X X

2.4 Special populations help X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Goal 3: Postsecondary education and lifelong learning

3.1 Secondary students--information & support X X X X X X X

3.2 Postsecondary students--fin. aid & support X X X X X X X X X X X

3.4 Lifelong learning X X X X X X X

Goal 4: High-performance organization

4.2 Flexibility with accountability X

4.3 Research, evaluation and improvement X X X X X X X X X

Civil rights, direct support X X
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 84

This page left blank
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 85

This page left blank.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 86

Exhibit 4

Strategies for Ensuring High Quality Information

 for Strategic Plan and Program Performance Indicators 

# Performance indicator standards

–Timeliness. Ensure performance information is collected on a regular and timely basis (e.g.,

a minimum of two data collections per indicator over the Strategic Plan period; quick

turnaround customer surveys).

–Validity. Ensure performance indicators are valid (e.g., measures align with research-based

findings on effective practices). Conduct state-of-the-art reviews of measures by objective and

major program area.

–Reliability. Ensure performance indicators are reliable (e.g., measures meet acceptable

sample size criteria for confidence levels, samples are appropriately representative; definitions

are consistent overtime.)

–Disaggregation. Ensure performance indicators appropriate disaggregate information down

to key operational units (e.g., states for state grant programs). 

# Employee training in performance measurement and use

–Materials and tools. Develop guides and training programs around performance

management and measurement 

–Training:

-Tailored training to particular offices needs and offer ongoing performance measurement

assistance.

-Develop certificated courses in performance measurement and utilization.

-Evaluate employee capabilities in different offices to manage information for performance.

-Offer on-line training

# Monitor data quality

–Internal monitoring and reviews. Develop an indicator ranking system that assesses

indicator quality by objective and major program area. 

–Staff performance agreements. Require program managers, as part of their performance

agreement, to validate the quality of their program performance information.

–Evaluation of data quality. 

-Ensure independence and objectivity of performance information by relying on program

evaluations to collect and process performance reports and to conduct independent evaluations

of performance for major programs.

-Conduct indicator quality evaluations to assess the accuracy of key indicator information.

–Inspector General. Support Inspector General reviews of data quality (see exhibit 5).

# Accountability for data quality

–Attest to data quality. “ED program mangers assert that the data used for their program’s

performance measurement are reliable and valid or will have plans for improvement.”

(Objective 4.7: Indicator 31)

–External validation. Evaluate program managers assertions through IG audits and program

evaluations.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 87

Quality of Performance Data: 

How Data Will Be Verified

and Validated

Effectively reporting the performance of the Education Department in achieving its Strategic Plan goals and

objectives requires developing some new data systems and fixing old ones. The new systems will seek to

redirect data collections toward gathering performance information on the accomplishment of Departmentwide and program goals. Existing data systems need to be strengthened to ensure the Department receives

high quality and timely data on its programs and their effects.

The Department is undertaking a comprehensive set of data improvement activities built around the

following two strategies.

# Strengthening data quality.

# Efficiently reporting and using performance information for improvement.

Actions being taken to achieve these strategies are described below followed by highlights of the strategies

being taken to improve elementary/secondary and postsecondary data quality.

Strengthening data quality

The quality of the Department’s performance measures can be no better than the quality of the data from

which they are generated. Inadequate attention to data quality produces inaccurate information and

misleading results. The lack among many program staff of formal training in information processing,

evaluation and reporting is a further impediment to obtaining high quality information. . 

To ensure the quality of performance indicator information the Department is proceeding forward on a

four-part improvement strategy (Exhibit 4).

# Develop Department-wide standards for performance indicator measurements. The standards should

be consistent with data quality standards developed by the National Forum on Education Statistics and

evaluation standards prepared by the American Evaluation Association. These standards would apply

to indicators in the Department’s multiyear Strategic Plan and annual program plans. 

# Develop employee training in the application of the data standards for performance measurement.

Training will be made on-going, integral to employee work and a priority of supervisors. To support

performance measurement training, the Department already has developed a performance measurement

guide by a noted expert in the field (see Hatry and Kopczynski, 1997). This comprehensive overview of

performance measurement will be followed by miniguides on performance management and

measurement, often customized to individual agency offices. 
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 88

# Monitor data quality. Quality control to ensure sound data is essential to the Department, which is

heavily dependent on State, grandee and institutional external data systems for information. The

Department is developing a formal process of rating data quality against data quality standards. The

Department will also use program evaluations for data validation. In addition, the Department is

working closely with its Office of Inspector General to achieve independent monitoring of the reliability

of its data quality in high priority areas. See Exhibit 5 on Inspector General activities.

# Managers attest to the reliability and validity of their performance measures or submit plans for

data improvement. Making managers accountable for data quality encourages attention to sound data

collections from the start of the grantmaking process. Managers asserting to the quality of their data

coupled with periodic external validation of their assertions is a powerful new incentive to improve

program performance information.

During 1998 and 1999, the Department will be strengthening its two major performance indicator systems,

one for the elementary and secondary system and a second for student aid. Collectively, these systems

account for about three-quarters of Departmental funds.

Developing an integrated data system for elementary and secondary state grant

programs

A key component of the Department’s information improvement strategy is creating integrated federal/state

indicator systems for the elementary and secondary state grant programs. This redesign will cover all

federal funds disbursed through the state grant process. These include programs to support challenging

standards, at-risk students, professional development, education technology, safe and drug-free schools,

and general improvement support.

A joint redesign project with the Council of Chief State School Officers will begin in spring 1998. Initial

tasks will include agreement on a set of data standards, key performance indicators and pilot testing of

systems beginning in the fall of school year 1998-99. Our target is to begin working with a least six

exemplary states on developing aligned, exemplary integrated indicator systems.

Key steps to developing the redesigned system include: 

# Identifying critical indicators in the Department’s strategic and program plans that are essential to

evaluating the performance of state grantees against program goals and objectives.

# Identifying which indicators are appropriate to collect at the national level and which ones should be

reported at the individual state level.

# Determining the best measures available to states within an appropriate range of costs and data burden.

# Aligning state performance reporting to indicators and measures, including exploring electronic means

for data transmission.

# Agreeing to standards for data reliability and validity for state-reported performance measures. 

# Coordinating data collections across different information sources, including state performance reports

and general purpose statistical collections. The later can serve as an independent check on self-reported

performance information.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 89

Exhibit 5

Inspector General Support for 

Data Verification and Validation

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has participated in an advisory

capacity in the development of the Department’s Strategic Plan and

Annual Plan and will continue to provide this service to Department

managers. 

The OIG is currently performing the first in a series of audits covering

the Department’s implementation of the Government Performance and

Results Act. The objectives of the first audit are; (1) to assess the

Department’s process for institutionalizing the results-oriented

management envisioned by the Act; and (2) to assess the development of

the system for the accurate and timely collection and reporting of

performance data.

For the Strategic Plan, the OIG recommended that Department program

managers assert that the data used for their program’s performance

measurement are reliable and if not reliable, detail plans for improving

the data or finding alternative sources. The Department agreed with the

OIG’s recommendation and included it as a performance indicator in the

Strategic Plan. The OIG plans to perform a series of audits on select

performance measurement data to assess the reliability of that data. The

OIG also plans to assess how the Department is using the performance

data to improve programs.

Improving postsecondary data quality

Validity and accuracy of postsecondary performance measures. Data used to measure progress toward

achievement of the performance indicators come from several sources including program data, surveys

conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and evaluation studies. Steps being

taken in 1998 and 1999 to strengthen the quality of these data include:

# Improving the coordination of data related to postsecondary education through the National

Postsecondary Education Cooperative (NPEC) which is sponsored by NCES and whose mission is, “to

promote the quality, comparability, and utility of postsecondary data and information that support

policy development, implementation, and evaluation.” NPEC will help improve the efficiency and

usefulness of the data reported on postsecondary education by standardizing definitions of key

variables, avoiding duplicate data requests, and increasing the level of communication between the

major providers and users of postsecondary data.

# Continuing to support and strengthen NCES’s major postsecondary data collection activities including

the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the National Postsecondary Student

Aid Study (NPSAS), the Beginning Postsecondary Student Study (BPS), the Bachelor’s and Beyond

Study (B&B), and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS). A major area of expected

improvement in the quality of these data collections is better linkages with OPE’s student aid data files

to capture accurate data on the federal aid being received by survey respondents.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 90

# Using evaluation methods and findings for the TRIO and Title III programs to help improve the data

collected in the annual program performance reports to provide a more accurate and more complete

picture of the activities and outcomes of the two programs.

Accuracy and efficiency of program data systems. In FY 1999 the Department of Education will provide

nearly $51 billion in federal student aid funds. To properly distribute and account for these funds, the

Department of Education needs to process and store data from over: 8 million student aid applications; 93

million individual student loans with a value of more than $150 billion; 6,000 postsecondary institutions;

4,800 lenders; and 36 state guarantee agencies. Ensuring the accurate and efficient collection of these data

is a key component in the successful delivery of the student aid programs and achievement of Goal 3 in the

Department’s Strategic Plan to, “ensure access to postsecondary education and lifelong learning.”

The student aid delivery system has suffered from data quality problems which are sufficiently severe to

cause the Department to fail to receive an unqualified audit opinion. Steps being taken to improve the

efficiency and quality of the student aid delivery system include:

# Improving data accuracy by:

–continuing or expanding interagency coordination on data matches–with the Internal Revenue Service,

the Social Security Administration, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Selective Service,

the U.S. Postal Service, and the Departments of Defense, Justice, and Housing and Urban

Development–to help improve data accuracy and reduce burden on respondents, 

–establishing by December 1999 industry-wide standards for data exchanges to stabilize data

requirements, improve data integrity, and reduce costly errors, and

–receiving individual student loan data directly from lenders rather than through guarantee agencies

and by expanding efforts to verify the data reported to the National Student Loan Data System.

# Strengthening indicators of customer satisfaction to provide early warnings of possible delivery system

problems. This will build on the Department’s successful on-going evaluations of its institutional and

student aid customers. 

# Refining a risk management system that encompasses all relevant data regarding postsecondary

institutions operation and management of the student aid programs so that compliance and enforcement

activities can be targeted on poorly performing institutions.

# Preparing a system architecture for the delivery of federal student aid by December 1998 that will help

integrate the multiple student aid databases based on student-level data in order to improve the

availability and quality of information on student aid applicants and recipients.

Ensuring the quality of performance information on internal management

systems 

The Department must have solid information on the performance of its internal management systems if it is

to achieve its Goal 4 objective of a high performance organization. This means obtaining adequate

coverage of internal system performance and ensuring the reliability of such data.

The Department plans on extending its independent evaluations, now used mainly for program evaluations,

to management evaluations. A priority area will be evaluation of the quality of performance data, including

data for customer surveys, performance contracting and employee performance ratings and awards. Also,

informational technology systems are the bulwark of productivity growth and 

evaluations are planned to examine the quality of data on the performance of key information systems and

of employee use of these systems.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 91

Reference

Hatry, Harry and Kopczynski, Mary. Guide to Program Outcome Measurement for the U.S. Department

of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education’s Planning and Evaluation Service, 1997.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 92

Planning Levels in the 

U.S. Department of Education

Budget Program and Initiative 

Plans

Strategic

Plan

Annual Plan

Strategic Goals,

ED's Management Reforms

Exhibit 6
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 93

Program Performance Plans

Volume 2 contains 99 program plans covering the Department’s programs.

The Department is committed to managing by results. Managers throughout the Department have prepared

individual program indicator plans that, like the Department’s Strategic Plan, lay out goals, objectives,

performance indicators and targets, data sources, and key strategies. Performance plans are now available

that cover all programs in the Department, although in some cases, several programs or budget line items

have been aggregated into a single performance plan.

Development process 

The process for developing these plans started in 1996 when the then-Under Secretary of Education

required each principal office to develop a program indicator plan for one of its largest or most important

programs. Working office by office, the Under Secretary met and personally reviewed the plans, and

common formats, indicators, and guidance began to emerge. By the end of 1996, each program office had

participated in at least one high-level review meeting and received guidance on the plans. By mid-March

1997, the Department was able to send to Congress a set of draft plans for many of its key programs

representing about 70 percent of the Department’s total appropriations.

Continued work by managers and staff at all levels of the agency resulted in a full set of program plans by

the end of 1997. Most of the plans were provided to key constituency groups at some point during

development for review, although the extent of review varied.

During preparation of the FY 1999 budget, the objectives and indicators in these plans were integrated

into the Department’s request to Congress, including the Congressional Justifications for FY 1999. As

illustrated by Exhibit 6, the program performance plans are a critical element in the Department’s planning

process and link both to the Strategic and Annual Plan objectives and strategies and to the budget request. 

Next steps

During the next year, the Department will focus on:

# Implementation and reporting.

# Improving data sources. Program offices, the Planning and Evaluation Service, or the National Center

for Education Statistics will amend or improve current data systems/studies in the program plans or

establish new ones as needed to ensure that indicator data are available. As described in the Annual

Plan section in this volume on quality of data, the Department will review the quality of its data

sources, both Strategic Plan and individual program plan sources.

# Continued review of plan frameworks. Program and staff offices will assess the appropriateness and

usefulness of the framework of objectives and indicators for selected plans, through:

–follow up to questions and concerns expressed by Congress;

–broad consultation with our education partners and with program stakeholders and customers;

–reviews by experts.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 94

Exhibit 7

Program Performance 

Plans in Volume 2:

Categories and Funding

Education Reform

Goals 2000: Educate America

School to Work Opportunities

Education Technology

Elementary and Secondary Education

Education for the Disadvantaged

Impact Aid

Class Size Reduction and Teacher Financing

School Improvement

America Reads Challenge

Indian Education

Bilingual and Immigrant Education

Special Education

Rehabilitation Services, Disability Research,

and Special Institutions

Vocational and Adult Education

Student Financial Assistance

Higher Education

Educational Research and Improvement

Office for Civil Rights

FY 1999 

President’s Budget*

$501,000,000

125,000,000

721,000,000

8,495,892,000

696,000,000

1,100,000,000

1,475,800,000

260,000,000

66,000,000

387,000,000

4,845,646,000

2,781,793,000

1,544,147,000

 11,532,801,000

1,288,405,000

685,367,000

68,000,000

Total, ED programs $36,771,464,000

* Excludes $1,028,905,000 in funding for Department management functions. Total budget request for FY

1999 is $37,800,369,000.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 95

Relationship of program plans and FY 1999 budget structure

Exhibit 7 displays the budget accounts and sub-accounts by which the program plans in Volume 2 are

grouped as well as the funding requested for each.

Exhibit 8 below shows the relationship of the individual program plans to the FY 1999 budget structure. In

some cases the Department aggregated activities in two or more budget lines in one plan. All program

activities in the FY 1999 budget have an individual program plan or are included within one.

Exhibit 8 

Relationship of Program Plans to FY 1999 Budget Structure

Program Plans

FY 1999

Budget (000s)

More than one

budget line in

plan?

Education Reform

1. Goals 2000 (state/local improvement; parental assistance) $501,000 Yes

2. School-to-work opportunities program $125,000 No

Educational Technology

3. Technology challenge programs (literacy and innovation grants,

national activities)

$668,000 Yes

4. Regional technology in education consortia $10,000 No

5. Star schools $34,000 No

6. Ready to learn television $7,000 No

7. Telecommunications demonstration project for mathematics $2,000 No

Education for the Disadvantaged

8. Title I LEA grants (basic, concent., targeted), capital expenses $7,777,000 Yes

9. Even Start $114,992 No

10. Title I migrant education $354,689 No

11. Title I neglected and delinquent $40,311 No

12. Comprehensive school reform demonstrations $150,000 No

13. Transition-to-school demonstrations $35,000 No

14. Migrant HEP and CAMP $15,000 Yes

Impact Aid

15. Impact aid $696,000 Yes

Class Size Reduction and Teacher Financing

16. Class size reduction and teacher financing initiative (prop.leg.) $1,100,000 No

School Improvement Programs

17. Eisenhower professional development state grants $335,000 No

18. Innovative education state grants (Title VI) (block grant) $0 No

19. Safe and drug-free schools (state grants, nat.progs, coordinators) $606,000 Yes

20. Inexpensive book distribution (RIF) $13,000 No

21. Arts in education $10,500 No

22. Magnet schools assistance $101,000 No

23. Education for homeless children and youth $30,000 No

24. Women’s educational equity $3,000 No

25. Training and advisory services (Civil Rights Act) $8,300 No

26. Ellender Fellowships $0 No

27. Education for Native Hawaiians $18,000 No

28. Alaska Native education equity $8,000 No
Exhibit 8 

Relationship of Program Plans to FY 1999 Budget Structure

Program Plans

FY 1999

Budget (000s)

More than one

budget line in

plan?

 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 96

29. Charter schools $100,000 No

30. Comprehensive regional assistance centers $40,000 No

31. Advanced placement test fees $3,000 No

32. Education opportunity zones (prop.leg.) $200,000 No

America Reads Challenge

33. America Reads Challenge (prop.leg.) $260,000 No

Indian Education

34. Grants to LEAs; special programs; national activities $66,000 Yes

Bilingual and Immigrant Education

35. Bilingual education $232,000 Yes

36. Foreign language assistance $5,000 No

37. Immigrant education $150,000 No

Special Education (IDEA)

38. State grants (grants to states and preschool grants) (Part B) $4,184,685 Yes

39. Grants for infants and families (Part C) $370,000 No

40. National activities (Part D) $290,961 Yes

Rehabilitation Services and Disability Research

41. Vocational rehabilitation grants to states, inservice training setaside, and supported employment state grants$2,325,280 Yes

42. Vocational rehabilitation grants for Indians $17,283 No

43. Client assistance state grants $10,928 No

44. Training $33,685 No

45. Special demonstration programs $18,942 No

46. Migratory workers $2,350 No

47. Recreational programs $2,596 No

48. Protection and advocacy of individual rights $9,894 No

49. Projects with industry $22,071 No

50. Independent living $79,574 Yes

51. Helen Keller National Center for Deaf-Blind Youths and Adults $8,176 No

52. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research $81,000 No

53. Assistive technology $30,000 No

Special Institutions for Persons with Disabilities

54. American Printing House for the Blind $8,256 No

55. National Technical Institute for the Deaf $44,791 No

56. Gallaudet University $83,480 No

Vocational and Adult Education

57. Vocational education basic grants and tech-prep education $1,136,650 Yes

58. Vocational education national programs $13,497 No

59. Tribally controlled postsecondary vocational institutions $0 No

60. Adult education state grants $361,000 No

61. Adult education evaluation and technical assistance $27,000 No

62. National Institute for Literacy $6,000 No
Exhibit 8 

Relationship of Program Plans to FY 1999 Budget Structure

Program Plans

FY 1999

Budget (000s)

More than one

budget line in

plan?

 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 97

63. Literacy programs for prisoners and State grants for incarcerated

youth offenders

$0 Yes

Student Financial Assistance

64. Cross-program measures (office-wide) NA NA

65. Pell grants $7,594,000 No

66. Campus-based programs $1,649,000 Yes

67. State student incentive grants $0 No

68. Federal Family Education Loans $1,764,317 No

69. Federal Direct Student Loans $525,484 No

Higher Education

70. Title III (HEA) aid for institutional development $260,000 Yes

71. Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education $22,500 No

72. International education/foreign language studies $61,117 Yes

73. Teacher recruitment and preparation (HEA, V - prop.leg.) $67,000 No

74. Interest subsidy grants $13,000 No

75. Urban community service (HEA XI-A) $0 No

76. Mary McLeod Bethune Memorial Fine Arts Center $0 No

77. Federal TRIO programs $583,000 No

78. High Hopes College-School Partnerships (prop.leg.) $140,000 No

79. National early intervention scholarships and partnerships $0 No

80. Byrd honors scholarships $39,288 No

81. National need graduate fellowship program (prop.leg.) $37,500 No

State grants for incarcerated youth offenders See # 63

82. Early awareness information program $15,000 No

83. Learning anytime anywhere partnerships (prop.leg.) $30,000 No

84. Access and retention innovations (prop.leg.) $20,000 No

85. Howard University $210,000 Yes

Research and Improvement

86. National education research institutes $53,782 No

87. Interagency research initiative $50,000 No

88. Regional educational laboratories $56,000 No

89. National dissemination activities $18,785 No

90. Statistics and assessment $104,000 Yes

91. Eisenhower professional development federal activities $50,000 No

92. Fund for the improvement of education $105,000 No

93. Javits gifted and talented education $6,500 No

94. Eisenhower math and science consortia $25,000 No

95. 21st century community learning centers $200,000 No

96. National writing project $5,000 No

97. Civic education $6,300 No

98. International education exchange $5,000 No

Department Management

99. Office for Civil Rights $68,000 No
Exhibit 8 

Relationship of Program Plans to FY 1999 Budget Structure

Program Plans

FY 1999

Budget (000s)

More than one

budget line in

plan?

 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 98

Office of the Inspector General $31,242 See below

Departmental management $997,663 NA

Total Budget Authority $37,800,369

Inspector General’s strategic and annual plans

The Department’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has a strategic plan located on the ED web site at:

http://www.vais.net/~edoig/misc/ffinalst.htm, which contains OIG’s mission, goals, performance measures,

and strategies. The OIG’s goals are:

#Goal 1. Program and Operations Improvement. OIG products and services are used by the

Department of Education, Congress, and other interested parties to improve the efficiency,

effectiveness, and integrity of education programs and operations.

#Goal 2. Program and Operations Integrity. OIG’s work discloses significant fraud, waste, and

abuse; results in enforcement and corrective actions; and promotes deterrence.

#Goal 3. High Performance. Transform the OIG into a high performance organization that promotes

productivity and a positive work environment.

The IG also has an annual plan for 1998-99 which can be found at: http://www.vais.net/~edoig/misc/

wp9899.htm. This plan lists the specific audits, investigations, and other activities planned for FY 1999

and delineates the expected impact of the work on the successful accomplishment of the Department’s

programs. Both plans are available in .html and Adobe Acrobat .pdf formats. Hard copy of these plans may

be obtained from the Department’s Office of the Inspector General.
 U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2-27-98 — Page 99

Appendix A: Coordination

with Other Agencies
Acronyms

For federal agencies and U.S. Department of Education offices mentioned in the

following table:

Agencies:

USDA Department of Agriculture 

CNS Corporation for National Service 

DOD Department of Defense

DOJ Department of Justice

DOL Department of Labor

ED Department of Education

FCC Federal Communications Commission

GPO Government Printing Office

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

IRS Internal Revenue Service

NASA National Aeronautical and Space Administration

NICHD National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

NIDA National Institute on Drug Abuse

NSF National Science Foundation

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

USPS United States Postal Service

ED offices:

ARC America Reads Challenge

DAEL Division of Adult Education and Literacy

NCES National Center for Education Statistics

OBEMLA Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs

ODS Office of the Deputy Secretary

OERI Office of Educational Research and Improvement

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OIIA Office of Intergovernmental and Interagency Affairs

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OUS Office of the Under Secretary

OVAE Office of Vocational and Adult Education

PES Planning and Evaluation Service 

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

SDFS Safe and Drug-Free Schools
U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 101

U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

Departments

Agriculture (USDA) • After school programs. The

Family-School Partnership

Initiative, USDA, and other

agencies participate in the Federal

Support to Communities Initiative

which was established to

coordinate after-school programs.

(Obj. 1.5 )

• Research. OERI’s National

Institute on Early Childhoold

Education will implement an

early childhood longitudinal

study with HHS and USDA.

(Obj. 4.3)

Defense (DOD) • Children’s reading . OIIA and

the America Reads Challenge

(ARC) Office will collaborate with

the U.S. Army’s Extended

Learning Program to train its

program directors in using

READ*WRITE*NOW! strategies

and materials. (Obj. 2.2)

• Defaulted borrowers. OPE

will work with DOD to better

track defaulted borrowers and

return them to repayment. 

(Obj. 3.3)

• Research. Several ED offices

(OESE, OERI, OUS, and

OSERS) support the Early

Childhood Research Working

Group (Health and Human

Services, DOD, Department of

Justice, Department of Labor,

and National Science

Foundation) in coordinating

research priorities and

databases. (Obj. 4.3)

Health and Human

Services (HHS)

• Drug prevention activities.

OESE’s Safe and Drug-Free

Schools (SDFS) office will

continue to pursue joint projects,

including efforts to provide

training and technical assistance

to educators, communities, and

states with the Center for

Substance Abuse Prevention,

Maternal and Child Health

Bureau, and National Institute on

Drug Abuse (NIDA). (Obj. 1.3)

• Indicators of child well-being.

OESE works to incorporate the

Federal Interagency Forum on

Child and Family Statistics’

indicators of child well-being into

all programs; including Even

Start. (Obj. 2.1)

• Defaulted borrowers. Work

with HHS to better track

defaulted borrowers and

return them to repayment. 

(Obj. 3.3)

• SSA beneficiaries. RSA will

address with SSA the

disincentives to work that

affect SSA beneficiaries. (Obj

3.4)

• Research. Several ED offices

(OESE, OERI, OUS, and

OSERS) support the Early

Childhood Research Working

Group (Health and Human

Services, DOD, Department of

Justice, Department of Labor,

and National Science

Foundation) in coordinating

research priorities and

databases. (Obj. 4.3)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 102

Health and Human

Services (HHS)

continued

• Prevention activities. OESE’s

SDFS office will support the

Initiative on Youth Substance

Abuse Prevention with HHS’s

Substance Abuse and Mental

Health Services Administration,

National Institute on Alcoholism

and Alcohol Abuse, and NIDA

(Obj. 1.3)

• Evaluation. OESE and PES

cooperate on evaluation projects

with HHS like School Health

Policies and Program’s Study.

(Obj 1.3)

• Data. OESE and PES maximize

use of data including NIDA’s 

Monitoring the Future and the

Center for Disease Control’s

(CDC) Youth Risk Behavior

Surveillance System. 

(Obj. 1.3 )

• Aligned indicators. OESE works

with the Head Start Bureau to

align indicators of progress and

quality between the Even Start

program and Head Start programs.

(Obj. 2.1)

• Early learning programs. OESE

Coordinate preschool programs

and efforts of the proposed “Early

Learning Fund” which is proposed

to support programs that improve

early learning and the quality and

safety of child care. (Obj. 2.1)

• Information sharing. OESE will

use the Early Childhood Research

Working Group to exchange/share

current information, provide

opportunities for interagency

research collaboration, and use

findings to improve programs.

(Obj. 2.1)

• School linked services. OESE

supports “Communities Can”

initiative to promote school-linked

services for young children and

their families. (Obj. 2.1)

• America Reads initiative. OUS

will coordinate publications

development and dissemination

with Heast Start and Resource and

Referral Network. (Obj. 2.2)

• Learning accommodation

strategies. The Division of

Adult Education and Literacy

(DAEL) will work with the

NIH and the Division of

National Adult Literacy and

Learning Disabilities Center

to develop information

concerning learning

accommodation strategies to

facilitate the participation of

adults with disabilities in

literacy programs. (Obj. 3.4)

• Welfare-to-work. Joint HHS

and ED effort to evaluate

welfare-to work strategies.

(Obj. 3.4)

• Early childhood longitudinal

study. OERI implementing

an early childhood

longitudinal study with HHS

and USDA. (Obj. 4.3)

• Research priorities. OERI

with NSF and NICHD 

develop comprehensive

priorities for education

research in areas of national

need. (Obj. 4.3)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 103

Health and Human

Services (HHS)

continued

• After school programs. The

Family-School Partnership

Initiative, HHS, and other

agencies participate in the Federal

Support to Communities Initiative

which was established to

coordinate after school programs.

(Obj. 1.5 )

• Reading outreach. The ARC

Office will coordinate outreach

with Head Start and Resource and

Referral Network to early

childhood caregivers. (Obj. 2.2)

• Reading and early childhood

collaboration. OESE, OIIA, and

the ARC Office will coordinate

community collaboration of Head

Start and Resource and Referral

Network and Department funded

activities for reading and early

childhood. (Obj. 2.2)

• Study on acquisition of English.

OBEMLA will collaborating with

NICHD to launch a five-year study

on acquisition of English and

teaching and learning of reading.

(Obj. 2.2)

• Acquisition of English grants. 

OSERS will award grants that

model NICHD research for the

learning disabled population. (Obj.

2.2)

• Participation in educational

activities. OESE, OBEMLA, and

OSERS will expand coordinated

efforts to ensure that children from

families moving from welfare to

work and others with special needs

receive opportunities to participate

fully in educational activities

aimed at helping them reach high

standards. (Obj. 2.4)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 104

Housing and Urban

Development (HUD)

• After school programs. The

Family-School Partnership

Initiative, HUD, and other

agencies participate in the Federal

Support to Communities Initiative

which was established to

coordinate after school programs.

(Obj. 1.5 )

• Defaulted borrowers. OPE

will work with HUD to better

track defaulted borrowers and

return them to repayment.

(Obj. 3.3)

Interior • Reading programs. OIIA OESE,

and the ARC Office will

coordinate with the Bureau of

Indian Affairs schools to

encourage extended learning in

reading programs that support the

America Reads Challenge. (Obj. 

2.2)

Justice (DOJ) • Prevention activities. OESE’s

SDFS office will continue to

pursue joint projects such as the

truancy and hate crimes

initiatives with DOJ’s Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) (Obj. 1.3)

• Data. OESE and PES work with

DOJ to develop and implement

the President’s Report Card on

School Violence. (Obj. 1.3)

• America Reads Challenge sites. 

The ARC Office and OESE will

collaborate with Justice’s Weed

and Seed Program to train

program directors in using Weed

and Seed sites as America Reads

Challenge extended learning

settings; and provide materials for

reading to Weed and Seed sites.

(Obj. 2.2)

• Defaulted borrowers. OPE

will work with DOJ, to better

track defaulted borrowers and

return them to repayment.

(Obj. 3.3)

• Student aid eligibility. OPE

will work with Immigration

and Naturalization Service

(INS) to perform data

matches to efficiently and

effectively determine

eligibility for student aid.

(Obj. 3.3)

• Research. Several ED offices

(OESE, OERI, OUS, and

OSERS) support the Early

Childhood Research Working

Group (Health and Human

Services, DOD, Department of

Justice, Department of Labor,

and National Science

Foundation) in coordinating

research priorities and

databases. (Obj. 4.3)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 105

Justice continued • Evaluation. OESE and PES will

cooperate on evaluation projects

such as the National Study on

School Violence, conducted in

cooperation with the National

Institute for Justice, and the

National Study of Delinquency

Prevention in Schools. (Obj. 1.3)

• Prevention technical assistance. 

OESE’s SDFS office with OJJDP,

and DOJ’s Office for Victims of

Crime will jointly pursue projects,

including providing training and

technical assistance to educators,

communities, and states. (Obj.

1.3)

• Data. OESE and PES seek to

maximize use of National Crime

Victimization Survey data in

reporting on school crime. (Obj.

1.3)

• After school programs. The

Family-School Partnership

Initiative, DOJ and other agencies

participate in the Federal Support

to Communities Initiative which

was established to coordinate

after school programs. (Obj. 1.5 )

• Census of juvenile facilities. 

OESE, OVAE, and PES will

coordinate in developing a Census

of Residential Juvenile Facilities

— a multidisciplinary project to

collect information on juveniles in

detention and correctional custody,

including data on education. (Obj.

2.4)

• Student loan repayment.

OPE will work with the

Internal Revenue Service

(IRS) to obtain adjusted gross

income and other tax

information on borrowers

regarding the repayment of

their student loans including

tax refund offsets for

defaulted borrowers. (Obj.

3.3)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 106

Labor (DOL) • School-to-work program.

OVAE and DOL jointly

administer the School-to-Work

program and through the national

School-to-Work Office are

coordinating efforts to improve

program management by aligning

grant-making, audit, technical

assistance, and performance

reporting functions. (Obj. 1.2)

• School-to-work concepts. Job

Corps Centers are being

encouraged to emphasize

adoption of school-to-work

concepts. (Obj. 1.2)

• Participation in educational

activities. OESE, OBEMLA,

OSERS expand coordinated efforts

to ensure that children from

families moving from welfare to

work and others with special needs

receive opportunities to participate

fully in educational activities

aimed at helping them reach high

standards. (Obj. 2.4)

• Student with disabilities. 

Rehabilitation Services

Administration (RSA)and the

School-to-Work office are

working to ensure that

students with disabilities

receive appropriate school-towork transition services. (Obj.

3.4)

• Research. Several ED offices

(OESE, OERI, and OSERS)

support the Early Childhood

Research Working Group

(Health and Human Services,

DOD, Department of Justice,

Department of Labor, and 

National Science Foundation)

in coordinating research

priorities and databases. (Obj.

4.3)

• Waiver authority. ED jointly

administers waiver authority

with the School-to-Work

Office. (Obj. 4.2)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 107

Treasury • Information dissemination.

Internal Revenue Service

prepares publications in

consultation with OPE

regarding steps needed for

taxpayers to claim the Hope

Scholarship and Lifetime

Learning tax credits. (Obj.

3.2)

• Student loan interest rates.

Consult with the Treasury

Department on the setting of

student loan interest rates.

(Obj. 3.2)

• Tax credits. OPE

coordinates to implement the

Lifetime Learning tax credit. 

(Obj. 3.4)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 108

Independent Agencies

Corporation for

National Services

(CNS)

• After school programs. The

Family-School Partnership

Initiative, USDA, and other

agencies participate in the Federal

Support to Communities Initiative

which was established to

coordinate after school programs.

(Obj. 1.5 )

• America Reads Challenge

(ARC) sites. ARC coordinates 65

ARC Pilot Sites with CNS grantee

sites using CNS volunteer tutors.

(Obj. 2.2)

• Publication development. The

ARC office will coordinate crossuse of CNS and ED publications

for the ARC and collaborative

development of materials. (Obj.

2.2)

• College work-study support. 

The ARC Office will cross-use

College Work Study students to

support CNS and Department

ARC sites. (Obj. 2.2)

Federal

Communications

Commission (FCC)

• E-rate. The Office of Educational

Technology will work with the

FCC and the Schools and

Libraries Corporation to

effectively implement effective

use of the “E-rate” which will

greatly expand the use of

technology in schools. (Obj. 1.7)

General Services

Administration

(GSA)

• Information dissemination. 

OERI is currently working

with the Consumer

Information Center (CIC) to

develop, promote, and

distribute information to the

public. (Obj. 4.1)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 109

Government Printing

Office (GPO)

• Depository Library System.

OERI continues to work with

this library system to ensure

all documents printed by GPO

are deposited, putting ED

documents in the public

domain for use by all

taxpayers and citizens. (Obj

4.1)

National Aeronautical

and Space

Administration

(NASA)

• Teachers of mathematics. OERI

will work with NASA and other

agencies to prepare a “roadmap”

for teacher preparation to improve

the training of future teachers of

mathematics. (Obj. 2.3)

National Endowment

for the Arts

• Prevention technical assistance. 

 OESE’s SDFS office will pursue

joint projects, including efforts to

provide training and technical

assistance to educators,

communities, and states. (Obj.

1.3)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 110

National Science

Foundation (NSF)

• Professional development.

OERI, ODS, OESE in

coordination with NSF, fund

projects of national significance

to upgrade professional

development in mathematics.

(Obj 1.4)

• Challenging mathematics. ODS

and other ED offices work on the

ED-NSF action strategy which will

launch a national information and

engagement campaign on the

importance of mathematics and 

jointly award grants to strengthen

the coordination of federal

programs in supporting

challenging mathematics. (Obj.

2.3)

• Research priorities. OERI

with NSF and NICHD 

develop comprehensive

priorities for education

research in areas of national

need. (Obj. 4.3)

• Research. Several ED offices

(OESE, OERI, OUS, and

OSERS) support the Early

Childhood Research Working

Group (HHS, DOD, DOJ,

DOL, and NSF) in

coordinating research

priorities and databases. (Obj.

4.3)

Office of Science and

Technology Policy

• Learning technologies. The

Office of Educational Technology

will work to complete interagency

action plan on learning

technologies research and

development. (Obj. 1.7)
U.S. Department of Education – Coordination with Federal Agencies

Organization

Goal 1. Help all students reach

challenging academic standards

so that they are prepared for 

responsible citizenship, further

learning and productive

employment. 

Goal 2. Build a solid foundation

for learning for all children 

Goal 3. Ensure access to

postsecondary education

and lifelong learning.

Goal 4. Make ED a highperforming organization by

focusing on results, service

quality, and customer

satisfaction

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999 2/25/98 – Page 111

Office of National

Drug Control Policy

(ONDCP)

• Prevention activities. OESE’s

SDFS office supports the

Initiative on Youth Substance

Abuse Prevention with HHS, and

ONDCP. (Obj. 1.3)

• Performance indicators. 

OESE’s SDFS office is

coordinating performance

indicators with ONDCP and other

agencies. (Obj. 1.3)

Selective Service • Student aid eligibility. OPE

works with Selective Service

to perform data matches to

efficiently and effectively

determine eligibility for

student aid. (Obj. 3.3)

U.S. Postal Service

(USPS)

• Defaulted borrowers. OPE

will work with USPS to better

track defaulted borrowers and

return them to repayment.

(Obj. 3.3)

U.S. Department of Education Annual Performance Plan: FY 1999

Facts about the Department of Education

#The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is the smallest federal

department, with less than 5,000 staff. Our full-time equivalent (FTE)

staffing ceiling in FY 1998 is 4,586.

#The number of programs that will be administered in FY 1998 is about

170.

#We will provide or oversee an estimated $74 billion in aid to education

in FY 1998. This figure includes program funding, new student loans, and

federal administration. It breaks down as follows:

– Congressional appropriations for program activities: $33.9 billion.

These funds are used for grants to state and local agencies, higher

education institutions, and other entities; contracts; and subsidies for

direct and guaranteed student loans.

– New student loans: $39.2 billion. Postsecondary education student

loans are made by ED, guaranteed by ED and issued by banks and

other financial institutions, or, under the Perkins loan program, issued

by postsecondary educational institutions. 

– Federal administration: $852.3 million. Department of Education

salaries and expenses totaled 1.2% of the FY 1998 dollars for aid to

education.

#We are responsible for a portfolio of outstanding student loans that will

total about $153 billion in FY 1998.

#Federal funds from all federal agencies represent a small but

important proportion of K-12 education funding and postsecondary

general institutional funding, but provide or guarantee a very large

share of student financial aid. For FY 1998, it is estimated that federal

education funds will represent about – 

– 9% of all education funding (public and private).

– 6% of K-12 funding (public and private).

– 12% of funding for postsecondary institutions (excluding student

financial aid).

– 75% of all student financial aid awarded to postsecondary students.
For additional copies of the Annual Plan, Volumes 1 or 2:

#Call 1-800-USA-LEARN. If in Washington, D.C., call 202 401-2000.

#Fax a request to 202 401-0689.

#E-mail a request to: strategic_plan@ed.gov.

#Download an HTML or PDF file from the Department’s web site. The Annual

Plan will be located under http://www.ed.gov/pubs/.

#For TTY, call 1-800-437-0833.

#For a Braille or audio-tape version, call 202 260-9895.

For questions on this plan, call Heather Ryner on 202 205-7939.